Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Health and Safety Executive (Grant Aid)

Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed reduction in grant aid to the Health and Safety Executive on charges to industry.

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed cut in grant aid to the Health and Safety Executive on charges to industry.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Next year, the grant in aid to the Health and Safety Commission will be increased in cash terms. It is for the HSC to decide how to plan its work within the available resources.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Is not the reality that there will be further charges? I refer specifically to the letter from the director to the staff of December 1993, which said that there would be an increase in charges to industry. Will not that add to the burdens that are placed on business generally? Will not there be cuts in the number of Health and Safety Executive staff, which will mean fewer on-site inspections and less access to the professional support and guidance that is required, leading to a further lowering of standards of health and safety?

Mr. Forsyth: The position is not as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The Health and Safety Commission has decided for the time being not to increase the range of charges that it levies. The hon. Gentleman is right—there may be a reduction in the overall staffing of about 120 posts, but that will be done by natural wastage. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, staffing levels reached a record total in September last year and they are something approaching 50 per cent. higher than they were when the Health and Safety Commission was established by the last Labour Government.

Mr. Mudie: Does the Minister accept that his first answer, in which he said that the grant was being increased in cash terms, is incorrect and that in real terms a cut of many millions of pounds is being made? Does he agree with the director-general of the HSE that proposals are coming through that will increase the charges on

businesses? How can he defend the cuts in services and staffing which could have horrifying consequences? Or does he care?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman heard the answer that I gave about charging, which is that this is a matter for the Health and Safety Commission. At present, it is not minded to increase the scope for charging. That is what it has decided. As for the points about safety and the concerns in the workplace, the hon. Gentleman must know that we have had the lowest ever figures for fatal accidents in the workplace. That trend has been sustained through some three years. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the Health and Safety Commission has additional duties as a result of the Government's actions, I would accept that that is so. Even compared with the duties of the Health and Safety Commission under Labour when it was established, there has been a substantial increase in staffing. Any reductions in posts will maintain those front-line functions.

Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that once the Government's deregulation Bill has become law, bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive will be able to concentrate on those regulations dealing with health and safety rather than on the unnecessary and pettifogging regulations that are the true causes of unnecessary charges to industry and business?

Mr. Forsyth: I absolutely agree with the sentiments that my hon. Friend expresses about the importance of reducing the burden of unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy. One of the ironies of this debate is that the Labour party, which established the Health and Safety Commission and wrote into the legislation that it was under a duty to review and modernise the health and safety regulations, now distances itself from that very proposition to make cheap political points against the Government.

Mr. John Greenway: Although I appreciate that he may not have personal knowledge of it, will my hon. Friend reassure my constituents in the vicinity of the proposed Kelt UK Ltd. gas-fired electricity generating plant in the vale of Pickering that the changes within the commission will not in any way undermine its ability to regulate that proposed plant, that it will be safe to the public and that there will be no damage to the environment?

Mr. Forsyth: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance as part of a general assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have repeatedly given. That is, nothing that the Government do, or that the Health and Safety Commission proposes, will in any way undermine standards of health and safety. On the contrary, by making regulations more understandable and by removing duplication and red tape we shall ensure higher standards of health and safety in the workplace.

Mr. Barron: If the Health and Safety Commission is not going to increase charges, can the Minister assure the House and businesses that no charges will be levied on businesses to pay for the statutory duties of the commission?

Mr. Forsyth: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that that is a matter for the Health and Safety Commission. It is for the commission to make proposals and Ministers have made it clear that we shall be guided by its advice. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the


taxpayer should put in more money while at the same time arguing that a large proportion of the Health and Safety Commission's income, which comes from charging, should not be reviewed from time to time. The trouble with Opposition Members is that they are not prepared to embrace change or to take account of changing circumstances.

Employment (East Midlands)

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the total of civilian employment in the east midlands has changed in the last 10 years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Between March 1983 and September 1993, the civilian employment total in the east midlands rose by 170,000.

Mr. Garnier: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to study the reports of the Lloyds bank business survey, which deals with both the national position and that in the east midlands and which predicts larger job increases, more profits and wider overseas markets for east midlands businesses? Is she aware that the employment picture in Harborough is better than it was 10 years ago, last year or even last month? Indeed, our unemployment figures are under 2,000.

Miss Widdecombe: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that, quite fortuitously, I have here the survey that he mentioned. It shows, among other things, that about a quarter of the firms in his constituency have taken on more staff. It also confirms that 16 per cent. expect to take on more staff during the next six months. It ends with a sentiment which I think would be generally echoed from the Government Benches:
This survey clears up any doubts that the UK economic recovery is finally established and under way.

Mr. Jim Marshall: That reply displays an unwarranted sense of complacency. The Minister may not have to hand the figures for my constituency, which is adjacent to that of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but may I remind her that it still has an unemployment rate of more than 13 per cent? Until the Government take a more proactive role, unemployment will remain unacceptably high.

Miss Widdecombe: It is abundantly clear that the new year's resolutions taken by Opposition Members did not include one to put cheer, heart and encouragement into their constituents. Perhaps I could carry out that role for the hon. Gentleman and give his constituents some heart and encouragement by saying that in his area there has also been a rise in civilian employment of 78,000 during the period in question. Will he please welcome that?

Mrs. Angela Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent publication of a pamphlet entitled "Unemployment in Derbyshire", which shows that unemployment was falling fast in the county and that vacancies were rising? Does she agree that that underlines the fact that Britain is moving out of recession? Does it also mean that the prospects are better, not just for those without a job in the county and in my constituency of Erewash, but for school leavers this summer?

Miss Widdecombe: I can confirm what my hon. Friend says. With the exception of the Opposition, there is now no one in the country who does not welcome the fall in unemployment in every region, the increase in vacancies and in civilian employment and the flexibility which means that we can take advantage of inward investment. When the Opposition start cheering those facts, I will believe that they care about British workers.

Part-time Employment, Leeds

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of (a) male and (b) female part-time workers in Leeds, West.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): Up-to-date information is not available, but unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has decreased by 9 per cent. in the past year and by 21 per cent. since 1986.

Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents are being offered permanent temporary work, but on a "term-time only" basis? That applies to people who are offered work at the Leeds metropolitan university, in the hospitals, and increasingly in business. It means that people have to sign on and off the dole and be in and out of the benefit office three, four and five times a year to make up their incomes from social security. Is not that employment practice reducing people to casual hired hands reminiscent of the last century, and costing the economy dearly?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is living in the past.
First, I greatly regret that the hon. Gentleman did not see fit to welcome the decrease in unemployment in his constituency. Secondly, I ask him to examine the statistics, which show that the percentage of those employed in temporary and casual work has remained between 5 and 6 per cent. in the past 10 years. I agree that it has increased sharply in the rest of Europe. It has trebled in France. In Spain, mainly as a result of the statutory minimum wage and other restrictions, the share of temporary and casual work has increased in the past 10 years from 15·6 per cent. —bearing in mind that it is between 5 and 6 per cent. in this country—to 32 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on that?

Labour Statistics

Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest employment figures.

Mr. David Hunt: Employment increased by 124,000 in the six months to September 1993 and the total employed in the civilian work force now exceeds 25 million.

Mr. Parry: The Government's recent crowing about the drop in unemployment will raise no joy in Liverpool, Riverside. Is the Minister aware that there is 24·3 per cent. unemployment in Riverside, and 306,000 are unemployed in the north-west region? Can he say when he expects the figures to drop below 10 per cent. in Liverpool, especially in Riverside?

Mr. Hunt: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not welcomed the fall in unemployment in his area and in the north-west, nor recognised that it has now fallen, as a


national average, below 10 per cent., nor that unemployment in the nation is 226,000 less than it was in January last year.
I believe that the prospects are good in Merseyside. I wish that Opposition Members would stop disparaging Liverpool and Merseyside. Merseyside has some of the best-known companies in the world, which are not only doing well but setting an example in Europe and in the rest of the world. I would simply refer the hon. Gentleman to the example of GPT, which I visited only a few weeks ago. It has revolutionised working practices and now has one of the most competitive work forces in the world. We are the centre, for instance, of the intelligent payphone industry, exporting from Chorley and Liverpool to 88 countries throughout the world. The hon. Gentleman should start singing the praises of the work force on Merseyside.

Sir Michael Neubert: For a proper perspective, is it not important to remember the present size of the work force? Does my right hon. Friend know the number of people in work, as opposed to out of work, and what proportion of the population of working age it represents?

Mr. Hunt: Those are two interesting statistics. First, the number of people employed now exceeds 25 million, which is 1·4 million more than were in the work force 10 years ago. That is a good figure. My hon. Friend also asked about the percentage of the working-age population in work. We have one of the highest rates in the whole of Europe; close to 80 per cent. of the male population of working age, and 63 per cent. of women of working age are in work. Altogether, 69 per cent. of adults of working age are in work. It is about time that the Labour party started looking at the statistics and praising the performance of the British people.

Ms Eagle: Will the Secretary of State admit that in drawing attention to the plight of the long-term unemployed on Merseyside my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) was talking down not Merseyside but the Government policies that have led to a massive loss of manufacturing employment there, and have thrown on to the scrap heap large numbers of young men, who find that they have no role in life and so turn to other diversions? Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that substantial and persistent high unemployment, such as has been suffered on Merseyside during his Government's time in office, does serious damage to the social fabric of our society and to our local communities, and that we must return to full employment to create a society "at ease with itself"?

Mr. Hunt: Most of my political life has been spent fighting the Labour party in and around Merseyside. Socialism has done enormous damage to Liverpool and Merseyside, and I am not prepared to take lectures from the hon. Lady on that subject. She referred to criticisms of policies, but her party would introduce a statutory minimum wage that would cost up to 2 million jobs, compulsory working weeks and statutory works councils. The Labour party wants to move in that direction just at the moment when the rest of Europe is beginning to heed our language and to realise that flexible labour markets bring more job opportunities.

Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating British Nuclear Fuels plc on the opening of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, and on the extra job

opportunities that that will create in the north-west? Does he agree that it is scandalous for the Labour leader of Lancashire county council to preach a policy of more jobs, while trying to prevent the plant from opening?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party was split on that issue as on so many other key issues facing the nation today. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said one thing and the chairman of the county council said another. Fortunately, the overwhelming arguments in favour of that prestigious development prevailed, and it has now provided much-needed job opportunities in the area.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite some of the improvements, unemployment today is at least 1·75 million more, using the fiddled figures—or 2·5 million more—than in 1979, when the Conservatives won the election on the slogan, "Labour isn't working"? Does he accept that, even with the present improvement in employment, it is likely to take until the next century for him and his Government to achieve the levels of employment and unemployment taken on by the Tory Government in 1979?

Mr. Hunt: I greatly regret that the hon. Gentleman has referred to the figures in a way that casts a great deal of suspicion on the independent statisticians in my Department. I make him the same offer as I made to his predecessor: I invite him to come to meet the independent statisticians whom he slanders, and to hear them tell hirn how much they, as well as I, regret that slander. I take great pride in the fact that productivity is at record levels. I recognise that that has led to a reduction in employment in manufacturing, but I take great heart from the fact that today 4 million people in the manufacturing industry are producing more than 7 million people produced in 1979. I believe that we have one of the best work forces in the world and that is why I believe that unemployment is on a firm downward trend. The hon. Gentleman disparages the country for being a service industry, yet he works in the service sector himself and it is about time that he exposed himself to a little market testing.

Inward Investment

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what studies his Department has made of the employment implications of inward investment into England.

Mr. David Hunt: Extensive and very positive.

Mr. Luff: If I were to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's excellent record of attracting inward investment into Wales, would he join me in paying tribute to the inward investment by American, Japanese and European companies in my constituency of Worcester, creating and safeguarding many hundreds of jobs? What estimates does he have of the total number of jobs safeguarded and created in England by inward investment which was largely opposed by the Labour party?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. The record on inward investment has been quite spectacular. Since 1979, in the United Kingdom there have been 3,800 projects, involving more than 500,000 jobs—many of them new and safeguarded jobs. They are good jobs and have provided a


real local base. As we look forward to the future, let us stop talking down the United Kingdom and England and start talking up the fact that that investment is coming because we have the best work force in the world.

Mr. Cryer: When does the Minister expect the inward investment to allow us to get back to the basic figure of 4·1 per cent. Unemployment—around 1·8 million people—of April 1979 under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Hunt: As I pointed out earlier, that was when we had 7 million people producing as much as 4 million people produce today. It is about time the hon. Gentleman reflected on the fact that British industry was so uncompetitive when we took over in 1979 and we have seen some of the best productivity increases seen anywhere in the world.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the most encouraging statistics that my right hon. Friend has given to the House in answer not only to this question but to others today. Will he accept that my constituency has one of the lowest levels of unemployment in the country, but that the north-west has in recent times encountered one or two serious and unfortunate blows, not least the receivership of Ferranti International—the sonar division of which is based in my constituency—and, more recently, the redundancies at Avro International Aerospace at Woodford on the periphery of my constituency? Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House what assistance he is giving to those two companies and to those being made redundant so as to minimise the adverse effects of those redundancies on them and their families?

Mr. Hunt: I greatly regret the redundancies that have occurred and the incidents to which my hon. Friend referred. Those jobs, certainly the ones recently announced by British Aerospace at Woodford and Chadderton, are part of British Aerospace's overall drive to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Of course there are concerns about the joint venture with Taiwan, but talks with Taiwan are continuing and British Aerospace has made it clear that Avro will continue in business whatever the outcome of those talks. Of course, local training and enterprise councils and the employment service will give the maximum possible assistance to all those who are affected by the closures.

Health and Safety

Mr. Leighton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what Acts and regulations relating to health and safety in force before December 1992 have been affected by the six EC directives which came into force on 31 December 1992; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Implementation of the directives has resulted in changes to 70 Acts, regulations and orders. I will arrange for a full list to be placed in the Library. However, of particular interest to Opposition Members might be the repeal of the Gut Scraping etc. Preparation of Tripe, Welfare of Workers Order 1920 and the Spinning by Self-Acting Mules Regulations 1905.

Mr. Leighton: Does the Minister recall the press release issued by the Secretary of State on 20 July, which referred to the Government's scrutiny report into the implementation of Community law? In it, he said that

health and safety legislation had been implemented in the United Kingdom without what he called the addition of unnecessary extra requirements, and that the scrutiny demonstrated that the charges that the Health and Safety Executive had been gold plating EC directives was completely unfounded. Does not what he said prove that it is entirely possible for the Health and Safety Executive to remove redundant legislation without a special Bill?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the DTI scrutiny absolved the Health and Safety Executive and the Government of any blame that we were gilding the lily in implementing EC directives. However, the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not aware that the Health and Safety Executive asked the Government to look at section 1(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which it believes prevents it from repealing redundant legislation without replacement.

Mr. David Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that only two member states of the European Community—Denmark and the United Kingdom—have implemented in full into their national legislation all nine of the EC directives on health and safety at work? Are they not to be congratulated, rather than criticised, for that fine record?

Mr. Forsyth: Of course I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is quite right. Only two member states—Britain and Denmark—had implemented the so-called six-pack by the January deadline. Indeed, only three EC countries have not been subject to criticism by the Commission in respect to their implementation of health and safety legislation. It is important not to regard the matter of health and safety as passing regulations and legislation. It is about influencing people's conduct in the workplace.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister recall bragging in November that Britain had opted out of European legislation to protect children from exploitation at work? The Social Affairs Commissioner said in Strasbourg this week that
It is very regrettable that the UK cannot endorse a minimal threshold for the protection of children, considered acceptable by the other 11 Member States.
What would the Minister say to him? Is it not the case that, as the Commission and the International Labour Organisation have condemned the British Government, the whole rotten deal to exploit children will soon be thrown out?

Mr. Forsyth: If ever we needed evidence of the Labour party's federal view, we have just heard it in that question. Those in Europe who seek to prevent us from allowing paperboys and others to continue their jobs should mind their own business. We have a long tradition of youngsters taking those jobs, and only the Labour party would wish to frustrate that continuing tradition.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my hon. Friend being somewhat defensive about health and safety regulations in this country? Is it not a fact that we have probably the best health and safety record in the world? It is Opposition Members who want to run down the excellent work and the excellent partnership between the Health and Safety Executive and caring employers and employees.

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our record on health and safety is second to none. It is among the best in the world—better than those of many of our European partners.

Mr. Prescott: Why change it?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asks, "Why change it?" That is exactly why the Government have resisted the approach from Europe which, a few minutes ago, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) criticised us for doing.

Youth Training Guarantee

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people under 18 years of age are not covered by the Government's youth training guarantee.

Miss Widdecombe: All young people aged under 18, who are not in a job or full-time education, are guaranteed the offer of a suitable youth training place if they want one.

Mr. McFall: Will the Minister look at the figures again? In Scotland, the Labour party contacted both the careers service and local enterprise companies, and the figure of 8,000 young people without a guarantee was given. That figure has still to be refuted. Whatever the precise figures, does the Minister agree that many thousands of young people are going about the United Kingdom without a job, without benefit, without hope and without a future? If back to basics means anything, does it not mean going back to giving a commitment to young people about a job and their future?

Miss Widdecombe: The long faces among Labour Members are equalled only by the sheer inaccuracy of their figures. I have in front of me the figure for Scotland, which the hon. Gentleman quoted as "8,000". The exact figure is 1,535. Perhaps I could give the hon. Gentleman some good news from his constituency. In August, 688 young people were waiting more than eight weeks, but today there are only 141. That is progress. Let the hon. Gentleman loudly welcome it.

Mr. Paice: Can my hon. Friend confirm that CAMBSTEC—the Cambridgeshire training and enterprise council—which services my constituency, now has only 12 young people waiting over eight weeks for their guarantee? Does not that underline why CAMBSTEC regularly comes near the top of all the surveys of training and enterprise councils throughout the country? Does not it demonstrate that the guarantee can effectively be met if TECs get their act together?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, I congratulate CAMBSTEC on its performance on the youth training guarantee, as I do on its performance on other issues. I have pleasure in confirming the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend. I have even greater pleasure in confirming that there are TECs with even lower figures, and many now with nought.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Those 16 and 17-year-olds who have been abandoned by the Government, often to a life of the sort of crime that people up and down this land resent, are the direct victims of the Government's policies. Can the Minister deny that this time last year, when the

Government were claiming that there were no 16 and 17-year-olds not on the guarantee, their labour force survey later revealed that 125,000 young people were not in work? Let me make it clear that we do not accuse civil servants of fiddling the figures or lying. The answer as to who is lying is much higher up the chain.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the way in which the youth guarantee works, despite patient explanations from the Government. No young people are abandoned by the Government. They are in one of three places. They are either in education—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that 77 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds are now in full-time education, or will he take the line that education is second best and Labour Members want an untrained, lowly qualified work force, rather than a highly educated one? Will he welcome the number of young people in training and jobs? Will he welcome the decrease in the number waiting? When will Labour Members welcome that performance? Will the hon. Gentleman stand up now and welcome all that?

Labour Statistics

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment figure; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Hunt: Two million seven hundred and sixty-six thousand two hundred—that is, 9·8 per cent. Last month's fall of 46,800 means that unemployment is 226,100 lower than it was in January 1993.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Is it not the case that the improvement in the figures is largely due to the fact that the job market is responding more quickly to the upturn in the economy because of more flexible labour relations?

Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There has been a transformation in industrial relations in this country. In 1979, industry lost 1,270 working days per 1,000 employees through disputes and strikes. By 1992, thanks to Conservative legislation, that number had fallen to 24. That is a significant development, and my hon. Friend is quite right to pay tribute to it.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Welcome as the reduction in unemployment is, does the Secretary of State accept that unemployment has fluctuated between 2 million and 3 million during the past 10 years? Will he look to the future and state when he thinks the figure will go below 2 million or 1 million? In the post-general agreement on tariffs and trade era and with the recovery of Germany and Japan and the rising nations of the Pacific rim, does he believe that this country has the skill base to compete and to ensure low unemployment and competitive trading conditions?

Mr. Hunt: First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing what the Labour party did not do, which was to welcome the fall in unemployment.
The hon. Gentleman must recall that there has been an increase in jobs during the past 10 years, with an increase in the number of people in work of 1·.4 million. Nevertheless, I accept that 2,766,200 is still an unacceptably high level of unemployment. I want to see that number brought down, and brought down permanently.
Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman and his party to oppose the Opposition policies of a minimum working wage, statutory works councils and compulsory working weeks which would only cost jobs. I urge him to join the Government in creating a new and modern apprenticeship scheme which will help to restore skills that are lacking at certain levels—particularly NVQ level 3.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the news that unemployment in Lancaster has fallen steeply compared with this time last year is welcome? The figure has fallen faster than either the national average or the regional average. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if Commissioner Millan were to agree with the proposition made in the European Parliament by my noble Friend Lord Inglewood, that tourism should be declared an industry, we could do even better?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend on the significance of tourism, not only as an employer but also as a contributor of substantial sums of money. I cannot give her what she is looking for in terms of categorisation, but I recognise the importance and the significance of tourism. I welcome with her the reduction in unemployment in the north-west.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that the reduction in the employment figures is due to the transformation of the labour market and that the loss of 3 million full-time jobs since 1979, and their replacement by 3 million part-time jobs has transformed the British labour force into a low-pay, low-skill skivvy labour force? Does the Secretary of State accept that that is no way for Britain to get economic prosperity?

Mr. Hunt: First, the hon. Gentleman got it wrong. We are talking about a fall in unemployment, and not employment as he said a few moments ago. There has been an increase in employment.
It is quite absurd for the hon. Gentleman to categorise the great success of this country as if it were just an increase in fast food jobs. We heard earlier a question regarding the fast food industry, because some Opposition Members have said that the rise in employment has come in the fast food industry. I do not know what those Opposition Members want. Do they want slow food, as they are in the slow lane of British politics? McDonalds? They are in the era of Ramsay MacDonald. Pizza Hut? They are still in a stone age hut. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues woke up to the modern world.

Employment Service

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the north-west region have been placed into work by the Employment Service in the last 12 months.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: More than a quarter of a million people have been placed into jobs by the Employment Service in the north-west.

Mr. Sumberg: May I pay tribute not only to the Employment Service but to the people of the north-west, whose businesses are coming through the recession with

success and determination? Has my hon. Friend noted the silence on the Opposition Benches? Is not good news for Britain and Lancashire bad news for Labour?

Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Opposition Members are the first people in history to shoot the messenger when he brings good news. The north-west is benefiting from the recovery more than any other part of the country. That was demonstrated by the Lloyd's bank review, which showed full order books there at a better level than in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Even before the collapse of Ferranti and the loss of jobs at British Aerospace, only one school leaver out of 12 in my constituency could get a job. What does the Minister say to the other 11?

Mr. Forsyth: I would tell those youngsters looking for jobs that they should not listen to the Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches but should recognise that 250,000 people have been placed in work in the north-west in the past year, that the Lloyd's bank survey showed that more than a third of employers expect to take people on in the coming years, and that we shall get more jobs only by being more competitive and rejecting the Labour party's policies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Enright: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit South Elmsall.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Enright: With the closure of Frickley colliery, one in three men in South Elmsall is now out of work, which is extremely serious. Will the Prime Minister promise to back Wakefield district council's bid for coalfield area funds so that it can co-operate, as it has successfully before, with the local chamber of commerce, British Coal Enterprise and others to produce a regeneration programme, which is so desperately needed? Wakefield council has shown that it can do it sensibly and sensitively and I ask that it be given the opportunity.

The Prime Minister: I understand the difficulties that face the hon. Gentleman and those of his constituents presently without work. I am delighted that unemployment has fallen in his constituency in recent years, but I recognise the serious problems that exist there. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's constituency will specifically benefit from the coalfield area fund, but a wide range of help will be available. In the hon. Gentleman's area alone,£4 million will be available for an industrial and commercial development programme, and £3 million will be provided to training and enterprise councils for training and business support. As the hon. Gentleman will know, intermediate area status has been granted. Regional enterprise grants have been extended and, in addition, in excess of £2·5 million of European structural funds has been granted to the Wakefield area. We shall continue to keep those under review and do all that we can to help miners who have lost their jobs.

Engagements

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment today to congratulate police and Customs on the co-ordinated job that led to the seizure of £50 million worth of cocaine in Manchester recently? Is he in a position yet to announce how the Government will co-ordinate Government departmental activity to give new impetus to the Government's own efforts to counter drugs misuse?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on a vital point, which is of great concern to this Government and across Europe. The fight against drugs involves all of us —police, customs, parents and Government—and we must all play our part in stepping up the campaign against those who deal in that trade. I welcome the seizure of cocaine to which my hon. Friend refers and congratulate all those involved in it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced before Christmas that the Government are setting up a drugs unit, the purpose of which will be to ensure that the policies of all Departments are co-ordinated to improve co-ordinated action against the general problem of drugs.

Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether by any chance he received a memorandum around the time of the Budget from the Treasury informing him that freezing income tax allowances for two years in succession would force 400,000 low-paid people into income tax for the first time? Was he aware that his Budgets would have that result?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, take-home pay for people in all strands of income has risen materially over recent years—by 40 per cent. plus for those on average earnings since 1979 and by 30 to 40 per cent. for those on half-average earnings. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might also recall that it fell between 1974 and 1979 for single people and for couples without children, and barely rose for couples with children.

Mr. John Smith: That was hardly an answer to my question. If the Prime Minister cannot answer that question may I ask him whether anyone told him that the tax changes in those Budgets would put the equivalent of 7p on income tax and that a typical family would have to pay another £1,330 over the next two years, or are those things that he preferred not to know about?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not entirely satisfied with the first answer, let me tell him further that even after the Budget there will be half a million fewer taxpayers next year than there were in 1979. Tax rates have fallen dramatically over that period and low inflation means that freezing personal allowances will cost basic rate taxpayers 34p a week when compared with inflation. He mentioned people on low incomes, but he neglected to mention family credit, child care allowance, the uprating in child benefit and the fact that the

real take-home pay of families on average earnings will be 40 per cent. higher than when his party was last in government.

Mr. John Smith: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a special effort of memory? I know that it is hard for him with all these papers crossing his desk all the time, but can he not struggle to recall his repeated promises to the British people that he would not increase income tax or national insurance and that he would not extend the scope of value added tax? Is not the breaking of those promises the reason for justified public cynicism and anger at this discredited Government?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is beginning to sound like a very worn record. It is absolutely clear that the standard rates of tax under the Conservative party have dropped dramatically since the Opposition were in government and, in any given circumstance, the rate of taxation under any Conservative Government would be lower than under any Labour Government at any time.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Winterton: Bearing in mind the interest presently shown by the press in the lives of the politicians, does my right hon. Friend agree that the press itself should show the same honour and integrity that it expects of others?

The Prime Minister: Madam Speaker,—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I am as anxious as anyone to hear the response to that question.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend might think that; I could not possibly comment.

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mudie: The Prime Minister will be aware that at permanent secretary level he was advised that the aid package to the Malaysian power station was a bad buy, uneconomic and an abuse of the aid system, yet he still instructed that the aid should be given. In view of the fact that it will cost the British taxpayer more than £230 million, does he consider that to be good judgment, and if so, why is he refusing to allow Members of the House to see papers relating to that decision?

The Prime Minister: The Government made a commitment to the Pergau project in 1989 personally to the Malaysian Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I decided in 1991 to proceed, both to honour the commitment made by my predecessor and in the wider context of maintaining billions of pounds of British exports to Malaysia—exports of £5 billion since 1982, and doubled exports between 1988 and 1992. To have withdrawn the contract would have put British jobs at risk. It is about time that the Opposition took a consistent position on these things. How does the hon. Gentleman


reconcile his party's call for lower unemployment with his criticism of this project? The British Government are backing British business and achieving orders abroad and all the hon. Gentleman can do is carp and criticise. Does he want jobs for British workers or does he not?

Mr. Kynoch: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the latest figures for manufacturing output show further significant growth? Does he agree that that represents further proof that the United Kingdom is leading Europe from recovery into a period of sustained growth?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly confirm that to my hon. Friend and the basis of this is the record that we have on inflation, the fact that we have been able to bring interest rates down and the fact that it is now clear to everyone that the British economy is recovering and growing—recovering more comprehensively and growing more rapidly than any other economy in western Europe.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern felt by so many people at the amount of financial sleaze in this country arising from Government policies and attitudes? Is he further aware that the one "back to basics" attitude that people desperately want and crave is the restoring of integrity to public life? Is it not clear that they will not get that from the Government?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely about the necessity for integrity in public life. The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have sought to take a moral stand about standards in public life. I do not object to that. It is also necessary for those Opposition Members to look at their own colleagues who spread smear and innuendo on a week-by-week basis with a complete disregard for the truth. Smear and innuendo are the hallmarks of political cowardice and they have become the trademark of the Opposition.

Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Rover Cars on its 9 per cent. increase in sales last year many of which were exported through Royal Portbury docks in my constituency? Is he aware that their production output outstripped Mercedes Benz in a difficult market and that neither the success of Rover nor Royal Portbury docks would have been possible without the privatisation programme which only the Conservative party would have had the courage to champion?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend both about the remarkable success of Rover Cars which I hope and expect will continue in future, and the success of privatisation both specifically and generally. It has been remarkable. What we now see in the motor car industry—in Rover and other parts of the industry—is that it has made the most remarkable turn around in recent years and soon will be a net exporter of motor cars. It is quite different from the old days a few years ago when Red Robbo and others were wrecking the entire industry.

Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Ms Quin: Is it not the case that the only clear message that the Prime Minister gave to the public yesterday when he was questioned by the Scott inquiry was, "Don't ask me, I'm only Prime Minister?"

The Prime Minister: I suggest that, in due course, the hon. Lady reads the six hours of detailed evidence that I gave. She might then regard her remarks of a moment ago to be just a touch inadequate.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister whether he plans to make an official visit to Worcester.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Luff: If my right hon. Friend were to visit Worcester—[Interruption] would he join me in welcoming the decision by two of the teacher trade unions to drop their boycott of national curriculum tests? Does he agree that that sets an excellent example for the other teacher trade union—the National Union of Teachers—to follow?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I very strongly agree with that. I very strongly agree with the two teacher trade unions that have decided to drop their boycott. It would be of immense help, not just to the profession of teaching but, essentially, to the children in the classroom, if the NUT were to take precisely the same action so that the tests can proceed. I believe that there is no justifiable reason for the boycott in the future. There was little, if any, justification before; now there is none. The NUT should follow the leadership of the other two unions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT

Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. William Waldegrave, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. Tim Sainsbury, presented a Bill to amend, and make provision for the amendment of, statutory provisions and rules of law in order to remove or reduce certain burdens affecting persons in the carrying on of trades, businesses or professions or otherwise, and for other deregulatory purposes; to make further provision in connection with the licensing of operators of goods vehicles; to make provision for and in connection with the contracting out of certain functions vested in Ministers of the Crown, local authorities, certain governmental bodies and the holders of certain offices; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

Abolition of Service Charges in Restaurants

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the levying of service charges in restaurants; and for connected purposes.
The Bill will amend the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and prohibit the imposition of service charges to restaurant bills.
I wonder whether you, Madam Speaker, have ever had the experience that I have had. [Laughter.] One goes into a restaurant with friends and orders the meal. Perhaps one gets good service. Perhaps one does not. The bill then arrives. It includes a hefty service charge. One proffers one's credit card, and back comes the credit card voucher for one to sign, but with the total left blank. One inquires of the waiter whether service was included in the bill, and he answers, "Yes, but we don't get to see any of it."
My Bill is designed to address that problem, which besets we British and foreign visitors alike. The Bill will not discourage good service; it will encourage it. The Bill will not stop tipping: it will encourage it, but only as a reward for good service. Tipping for good service, not tipping for bad service, seems to me, dare I say, like getting back to basics.
I am well aware that, despite the Bill having the support of the Consumers Association, the Office of Fair Trading, trading standards officers and, last but by no means least, the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain, there may be some lawyers in this place who will oppose it. Their argument, predictably, goes rather like this. Sure, a service charge is legally binding if it mentions the charge on the menu, but once one has sat down, started to munch on a roll and butter and look at the menu, if it mentions a service charge, one can always get up and leave—oh, come on!
Then they say that, if the service is so bad and if one does not want to pay the charge, one can always hire a lawyer and argue it in court. The lawyers would say that, would they not?
The Bill would bring to an end the battle of confusion, nerve and, frankly, sharp practice that so often causes heartburn and grief at the end of an otherwise mellifluous meal. The price of a meal would be clear on the menu, just like the price tag in a shop, with no extras added on later. That is vital, not only for us, but for the millions of foreign visitors to Britain each year who feel that they are simply being ripped off.
My Bill will end all that confusion. It will protect those who have gone for pleasant meals—in otherwise reputable restaurants—which have been soured by the addition of an unexpected 10, 12·5 or even 15 per cent. service charge at the end of the bill. It would end the optional service charge, which is not optional to any but the bravest of souls prepared to dispute the level of service received. It would cease the moral strife that haunts the diner who queries the suggested gratuity and is informed that it is used to pay staff wages. In what other industry would such an important overhead as staffing costs be left to chance payments by customers?
Making it absolutely clear that the price stated on the menu is inclusive of all charges should also stamp out what can only be described as blackmail—that open credit card slip. As the informed consumer knows, there is no need to

leave a further tip or free will offering for staff if service is included—yet for some, and for many foreign visitors, it takes nerves of steel to argue the toss with the waiter or management.
Let there be no doubt that the service charge is the tip. If all prices were stated net, there would be no confusion. The mutual degradation of anxious waiter and befuddled diner would be ended.
I re-emphasise that I have no wish to stop free will gifts or tips but I want to end the informal pressure on people to pay a tip as an inevitable part of eating out, regardless of quality of service. I do not tip in pubs or fast food or cheap restaurants. Nor do I make a so-called free will offering to the stewardess on an airline, no matter what service she has given. Given that we do not tip in all those different circumstances, why should there be a virtual compulsion through service charges in restaurants?
The service charge is an anomaly left over from the second world war, when rationing and price controls led certain expensive restaurants to find ways around the restrictions. The law stipulates that all menu prices must be inclusive of value added tax. According to the Department of Trade and Industry code of practice on misleading price indications, any compulsory service charge should be included in the price for each item wherever practicable. In the four years or so that the code has been in existence, it has had little effect on the restaurant trade.
The House might find it hard to believe that in 1993, The Good Food Guide listed only 93 out of 1,400 restaurants that close credit cards by filling in the total, including the service charge. A survey by Which? in May 1992 showed that many restaurants made a compulsory service charge, leaving credit card slips open. Even worse, they presented credit card slips without the bill or anything else to remind the customer that service had already been included in the price of the meal.
That code of practice is simply not working, and discussions on its amendment have yet to have any impact. The code has little legal effect. Until it does, I suspect that the majority of restaurants will continue to avoid net prices on their menus, for the reason that it makes their prices appear cheaper and more competitive than other restaurants, which is most unfair.
A ban on additional service charges is supported not only by the many consumer organisations that I mentioned earlier but, I suspect, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. I refer not to his dining habits but to the tax man, who should benefit from net prices and the removal of the supposedly optional charge that allows the restaurant to avoid VAT on that element.
As my colleagues know, I am not a regulator by nature —far from it—but tighter guidance is needed to ensure that the intentions behind the Consumer Protection Act 1987 stick. You will find this impossible to believe, Madam Speaker, but even the French have legislated to make all-inclusive restaurant prices obligatory. Now, every European Union member state except Britain and Greece has all-inclusive prices.
Recently, The Good Food Guide commented:
The recession may have forced proprietors to reduce their headline prices to persuade customers through their doors, but some of them load the other costs to the point of virtual deceit. The public sometimes feels restaurants are combat zones.
My Bill will go some way towards ending that.
I realise that, in presenting this Bill, I face the gravest danger. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have
drawn my attention to the risk of ground glass or worse. The Bill, however, has cross-party support, and it needs to be passed, for the sake of both equity and our tourist industry. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I do not think that we should pass the Bill. Notwithstanding its- superficial attraction, it should be seen against the backdrop of the current wage position: at present, we have no national minimum wage. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) to bleat on about people who can pay for their meals with credit cards. Many people who work in restaurants are, unhappily, dependent on tips to obtain their wages.

Dr. John Reid: They are not getting them.

Mr. Mackinlay: No, they are not. Not only is there no minimum wage; such people have no access to industrial tribunals, and thus cannot complain about the unreasonable behaviour of their employers.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire mentioned the practice in France. In France, there is a basic minimum for people working in restaurants, and they are able to complain about unreasonable behaviour on the part of employers.
If the House passes the Bill, it will give satisfaction to those who can purchase meals with credit cards, but it will do nothing to improve the lot of restaurant workers receiving low wages, who often have no national insurance or pension rights, and are paid skivvy wages.
The House should concentrate on introducing employment protection, especially for people on low wages. We should ensure that such people have a right, and remedy, to complain about employers who withhold money to which they are entitled. The House should take such action, rather than placating people with bits of plastic in their wallets who can afford to pay more.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House proceeded to a Division, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, MADAM SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Tony Banks, Dr. John G. Blackburn, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Gorst, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Sir James Kilfedder, Sir Fergus Montgomery, Mr. Bill Olner, Dr. John Reid and Mr. John Sykes.

ABOLITION OF SERVICE CHARGES IN RESTAURANTS

Mr. Michael Fabricant accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the levying of service charges in restaurants; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 March, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

Scott Inquiry

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to make a brief point of order which goes to the heart of what we try to do in the House. It is about ministerial responsibility.
Yesterday, at the Scott inquiry, the gist of what the Prime Minister had to say was that he could not possibly know all that was going on in the Department of which he was the head. Every time we work with Ministers in the House, at Question Time or in debates, we have to work on the assumption that Ministers are here speaking and responsible for the work of the Departments over which they preside.
If they are able to offer as a defence, "It is nothing to do with me; I could not possibly have known what was going on; far too much work is covered by my Department and far too many pieces of paper go through my office," that makes complete nonsense of the notion of ministerial accountability.
The House needs to know whether a Minister speaking from the Dispatch Box speaks with knowledge and authority, having been properly briefed by his Department, and whether he is accountable. In that sense, "accountable" means that, if things go wrong, Ministers will do the honourable thing and resign. Or will they always simply offer us the defence that they gave us a misleading answer or a duff performance, but that that is entirely explicable because, in modern government, it is impossible for Ministers to be responsible for their Departments. If that is the case—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a long point of order, and barely a matter for me. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the response that I gave to a similar point of order yesterday, so that I do not have to be tedious and repetitious with the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at yesterday's Hansard, in which he will find my answer to a similar point of order.

Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I will take no further point of order. I have dealt with the matter.

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have had to place a 10-minute limit on speeches between the hours of 6 and 8, because of the great interest in the Bill.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In our election manifesto, we pledged to privatise British Coal. Last spring, in our White Paper "Prospects for Coal", we renewed that pledge. Before I deal with the specific measures in the Bill, it is worth spending a few moments on the wider issues of nationalisation.
The British coal industry is one of the last major industrial sectors left in the public sector. Nationalisation of our industries was a central feature of post-war Labour Governments. It was resisted fiercely by the Conservative Opposition of the day, and there are few people left who would deny that, as a policy, it imposed intolerable economic and legislative burdens on our country and contributed to the decline of our regional economies.
The policy was designed to transfer the commanding heights of the economy to state control. The naive political rationalisation at the time was that control would be vested in the people. In reality, power rapidly shifted to monopoly providers and monopoly producer unions. What power the people possessed was exercised by civil servants, who rapidly became both protector and confidant of the industries' self-interest, and, worse, by the political convenience of the party in power.
The traditional—and, in the end, the only effective—disciplines of the marketplace were replaced by ill-disciplined compromises and cash-consuming delay. The objectives of enhanced efficiency, increased productivity and a high quality of service played little part in the day-to-day practices or assumptions.
Industrial management, hitherto widely dispersed throughout the regions of the United Kingdom, was replaced by top-heavy bureaucracies that were located largely in London. Perhaps most damaging of all, in virtually every case our key industries withdrew from or were denied access to the markets of the world. I say this to reinforce the case for the Bill, if such reinforcement were necessary. Today, the concept of state ownership is bankrupt. Across the world, country after country is turning to the discipline of the marketplace as each seeks to dispose of its nationalised industies.
Even the Labour party has lost the will to fight for this arcane concept of industrial organisation and management. Of course it parades and re-parades the weary arguments that a tiny body of its constituents, and of course its union paymasters, want to hear, but it knows that the tide of freedom that we have brought to the nationalised industries is now as irreversible here as it is in so many countries, under Governments ranging from the socialists of China to the right-wing Government in France.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the worries of many

ex-coalminers and miners' widows is that the benefits and agreements that they had with the National Coal Board will not be continued after privatisation? Will he give a categorical assurance on the matter?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall deal with the specific objects of concern case by case, as I consider the detailed contents of the Bill.
Before I leave the overwhelming case in favour of privatisation at large, which rests behind the Bill, I must point out that, as hon. Members will know, the facts are stark. In 1979, the nationalised industries were costing the taxpayer £50 million per week in losses. Today, they pay £60 million per week in taxes on the profits that they earn as private sector companies and, most chilling of all for the Labour party, 6 million shareholders are willing to testify and to vote for the success that privatisation has brought.
What are the facts about the nationalisation of the mines? At the time of nationalisation in 1947, there were 720,000 mineworkers employed by the National Coal Board. By 1980, that figure was down to 230,000—a reduction on average of around 15,000 a year. The rundown was as much a characteristic of Labour as of Conservative Governments.
The number of operating pits also declined throughout that period. Opposition Members will recall, for example, that between 1964 and 1970, and between 1974 and 1979, the number of producing pits fell by 313. Indeed, since 1979, it is a Conservative Government who have injected by far the largest support for British Coal in the history of British Coal—nearly £20 billion.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: That was redundancy pay.

Mr. Heseltine: Yes, the Conservative Government made very generous redundancy payments. However, the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to face up to the fact that £8 billion of that £20 billion was capital investment in the industry. So, since the war—

Mr. Campbell: I can give the Secretary of State one example of what happened in my colliery. A transport system, which cost £300,000, was bought, put in the timber yard, hapt up and kept there, and charged to that colliery when it closed. That is only one example. What happened at the other collieries in which the Government invested?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman can quote his £300,000 example, but does the House seriously believe that it stands up against the £8 billion that has flowed into capital investment in the Coal Board since 1979? The Opposition talk as though they cared about the industry, but they ran it down. There has never been such a large investment programme in the coal industry as under Conservative Governments since 1979.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that, at Parkside colliery in my constituency, a £6·5 million investment in a new face, which was in production for a fortnight before it was closed down under his regime, is now rotting in the ground?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman might ask himself whether the decision to invest such large sums of money was justified in the face of a falling market for the product. That is an example of precisely the lack of discipline that I have been referring to—a lack that was characteristic of nationalised industries throughout the post-war period.

Mr. Eric Clarke: The accounts of the National Coal Board show that it repaid to the Government, at a very high interest rate, loans that it had received over some years. The money that the right hon. Gentleman was crediting the Government with investing in the industry was paid back before the so-called profit was decided. The Secretary of State can investigate that fact if he likes.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must understand that most of the £20 billion invested in the National Coal Board since 1979 will be written off, which means that it will be charged in perpetuity to the taxpayer. I admire the fact, however, that he is now a director of a private sector coal company. I know that the House will wish him all the very best good fortune.

Mr. Clarke: I am not a director of a private company: the right hon. Gentleman has been misled. I am an adviser to a company which has the involvement of the Scottish trade union movement.

Mr. Heseltine: I would not wish to misrepresent the hon. Member. If his advice is successful, however, he might soon be a director of the company.
Since the war and nationalisation, the coal industry has lost its market for producing town gas, it no longer sells coal to the railways or mines coking coal, and it has lost the greater part of sales of coal for home heating and industrial use. During the debates of the past year or so, we have been all too familiar with the fact that British Coal is now very dependent on sales for electricity generation, and we are equally and starkly aware that it is coming under increasing pressure in that market as well.

Mr. Derek Enright: If there is no market whatsoever for coal, can the President please explain why five applications are being processed for opencast coal mining in my constituency, when the opencast coal will be dearer than that from Grimethorpe?

Mr. Heseltine: The explanation is entirely a matter for those people who have submitted the applications to carry out the mining. It seems extremely unlikely to me that people are bidding to take on onerous responsibilities for mining coal in an opencast field when they could get it cheaper from the deep-mined industry. However, that is a judgment for those people who are prepared to invest their money in the process.
The Government's position is clear. We have given an undertaking to ensure that the Coal Board offers to license the deep mines to the private sector, and I am glad that there are a number of cases in which agreements have been reached or the negotiations are well advanced. I much admire all those Opposition Members who are playing a role in facilitating negotiations and encouraging the prospects that those pits might find an alternative life in the private sector.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot give way to three people at once, but the lady must of course have preference.

Ms Joan Walley: Will the President tell us exactly why he is not prepared to set up a target for the amount of opencast mining, and why it is that in, north Staffordshire, Trentham and Silverdale have been

closed, and we now expect even more opencast mining to go ahead? Why are not environmental issues at the heart of his energy policies?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady mentions a most important subject, and she must be aware that consultation is now under way on mineral planning guidance 3. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but it raises important issues of balancing the environmental and economic arguments that are—superficially at least—in conflict. I have great sympathy with the hon. Lady's arguments.

Mr. John Cummings: The right hon. Gentleman has confused me. I agree with him that successive Governments, Labour and Tory, have invested heavily in the mining industry during the past 30 years. Indeed, with the closure of Easington colliery, tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been left in a flooded mine. Is it not obligatory for the President to underpin that £20 billion-worth of taxpayers' investment by assisting in working a market for the benefit of a British industry, providing British coal?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member has obviously missed the point: that, with the approval of the House, we offered to put more taxpayers' money behind the production of deep-mined coal if people would come forward and find an additional market for that coal. In some cases, negotiations have been concluded or are proceeding. It would be wrong for me to give artificial assurances that I can sustain economic activities for which there is no market justification.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the President explain the logic of taxpayers' money subsidising the acknowledgedly inefficient Spanish coal industry through the European Union?

Mr. Heseltine: I challenge that logic constantly. My department, as the custodian of much of the trading interest of this country, has the responsibility of constantly challenging the existence of subsidies. The aim is not for us to introduce them into our economy; it is for us to try to eliminate them from the rest of the European Union. That is the task in which we are engaged.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? Madam Speaker, you introduced a ten-minute limit, and I suspect that I am beginning to intrude into rather more speeches than I would wish to do. I must ask hon. Members to allow me get on to the detail of the Bill.
There is one last point that I wish to record about my judgments on the industry. I have not the slightest doubt that our coal industry would be in a much healthier position today if the adjustment which has taken place under every Government, and too late, had taken place in the post-war period of economic expansion, when the diversification of the economy could have proceeded faster and when the highly desirable employees of the coal industry could have found jobs in growth industries of that time.
I will go further. I have little doubt that, if the coal industry had had to face the challenge of the marketplace much earlier, it would have achieved productivity gains which recently, and under pressure, it has begun to achieve, but it would have achieved those productivity gains in time


to head off at least part of the dash for gas, and thus it would have secured for itself a larger share of the marketplace than is today realistic.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the President is arguing that a secure future for coal required privatisation some time ago, there have been 14 years of his government during which that could have happened. Is not the criticism the same—that a lack of strategic energy policy has been the consistent feature of every year of his Department and its predecessor since 1979? That is why coal is in difficulty; it has never known what place it would have and never been given any security as part of a diverse market supply, as the best resource that we have available.

Mr. Heseltine: That was an interesting intervention by the hon. Member from the Liberal party. I do not pretend to have been shadowing with great care Liberal policy statements for the earlier part of the past decade, but I do not remember, Madam Speaker—perhaps you do, and perhaps I owe the hon. Member an apology—the Liberals making a major demand in all those years that we should privatise the coal industry.
Indeed, if the Liberals had ever come forward with any firm demand at all, especially one that might contain any element of controversy, it would have come as a surprise to me. The Liberals would demand privatisation of the coal industry only in sections of industry, or of the electorate, where there was no coal industry, for fear that otherwise they might offend someone. That is a classic example of the Liberal Democrat party waiting until all the policy options have been closed, and then asking, "Why don't you do it some other way?"

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the President of the Board of Trade give way?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot resist.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman has not been following Liberal policy closely enough. I know that he has been ill and has been missing, and that for a long time he was not a Cabinet Minister. However, if he would check the facts, he would find that, in true Liberal Democratic fashion, that party was in favour of privatisation before the general election, but is now against it.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman reveals the sort of inconsistency on doctrine that we have come to expect from the modern Labour party. I congratulate him on having read the documents. It shows that he is preoccupied with "back to basics", and has learnt to read effectively after all this time.

Mr. Bill Etherington: I took great note of the right hon. Gentleman's long diatribe against nationalisation. Is he prepared to tell the House how many private companies have made as many gains in productivity as the Coal Board has made over the past two years?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that British Steel is now a world-class company, that British Gas is trading in more than 45 foreign countries, that British Airways is now one of the most successful airlines in the world, and that our electricity, our power and our telecommunications industries are straddling the world in the best interests of Britain.
Why? It is because we privatised the companies that have made that possible. Let us remember that we did that in the teeth of the opposition of the Labour party. If it had had its way, we would still have huge bureaucracies of politicians and civil servants suffocating the entrepreneurial zeal that the Conservative party has let loose on the world market.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Heseltine: For the last time.

Mr. Thompson: I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's argument closely for the last few minutes, and he rightly claims that £20 billion has been put into the industry in the period concerned—£8 billion in capital investment. But does he recall that the Conservative party has been in power for the past 15 years, and that he and his predecessors were responsible for policy? Surely policies could have changed over those 15 years so as to accommodate the situation that has developed now.

Mr. Heseltine: If I had to plead guilty to the hon. Gentleman's accusations, I would have to say that I wish that we had privatised the coal industry in the early 1980s. I must make that clear. However, the implication is that, in doing so, we would have gained the serried support of the Labour party, whereas actually it was encouraging the National Union of Mineworkers in any obdurate political action that it could devise to stop the modernisation of the industry. The coal industry has found itself at the end of the queue. More's the pity, and, I suspect, more's the price that the coal industry has paid as a result.
The Bill contains the Government's proposals for restructuring and privatising British Coal. It sets out the necessary provisions for safeguarding pension rights and concessionary fuel entitlements, and those affected by mining subsidence. It also reflects our determination to ensure that the high safety standards in the industry are maintained or improved in the light of the advice of the Health and Safety Commission.
We believe that a competitive energy market is the best guarantee of secure, diverse and sustainable energy supplies in the forms that people and companies want, and at competitive prices. Electricity and gas privatisation have changed the nature of the energy market from a producer-led to a consumer-led market. We have made it a priority to establish a range of substantial privately owned energy companies free to take strategic decisions within a proper framework of regulation. The time has come for the coal industry to enjoy the same freedom.
We examined the prospects for coal within the energy market very carefully during the coal review. On the basis of all the evidence that was presented to us, we had to conclude that there was every prospect that the market would continue to be difficult.
Despite that, it remains the case that coal accounts for over half of all fuel used for electricity generation. On any calculation, coal will continue to be one of the chief sources of energy for the electricity supply industry in the years ahead. The House will remember that we accepted the key recommendation of the Select Committee and have introduced a subsidy for additional sales for electricity generation from deep mined coal. However, the real test is the rate at which the industry can improve its competitiveness.
The industry, as Opposition Members have said, has made considerable strides in improving productivity over recent years. It is only by building on those gains that the industry will compete effectively in future. Privatisation will best ensure that prospect. Time and again, privatisation has demonstrated the ability of industries which had previously lagged behind their international competitors to catch up and, increasingly to set the pace. That is true whether one looks at the docks, at steel, or at a whole range of public utilities. There is every reason to expect that the coal industry will do the same.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the President give way?

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I think that I have given way enough.
Our intention is to offer British Coal's assets for sale in five regional businesses. Those will be based on Scotland, Wales, the north-east, and two parts of the central coalfield. Potential purchasers will be able to bid for one or more packages, and all bids will be considered on their merits. Our proposals will attreact new outside management, and they will give the industry's existing managers and employees the chance to make proposals to take over their own industry.
The Government have made it clear that we are prepared to offer financial support to help potential management and employee buy-out teams to carry their proposals forward.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the President of the Board of Trade give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No.
On receiving Royal Assent, the Bill will end immediately the existing statutory restrictions that limit the scale of operations of private sector mines that can be licensed by British Coal. It will provide for a new Coal Authority to carry out those functions of British Coal which would not be appropriate for the private sector.
The new Coal Authority will be based in Nottinghamshire. Its main functions will be licensing of coal mining, owning and granting access to our coal reserves, carrying out British Coal's responsibilities for the physical legacy of past mining to the extent that they are not taken over by the private sector, and making available mining records and geological information.
The Coal Authority must be fully impartial in carrying out its licensing duties, so it will not, therefore, be allowed itself to participate in commercial mining. British Coal will become a licensee of the Coal Authority prior to privatisation. The Bill contins scheme-making powers, similar to those in previous privatisations, for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities of British Coal to other parties as necessary for the privatisation of the business. The Bill provides for the dissolution of British Coal in due course.
I turn now to the critical issue of safety. The coal industry in the United Kingdom has one of the best safety records in the world. I made it clear as soon as I arrived at the DTI that I would do nothing to prejudice that record. I repeat that pledge today. In 1992, we sought—

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the President give way?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member has had a go.
In 1992, we sought the advice of the Health and Safety Commission on the safety implications of privatisation. The commission's full and considered advice was received in October. The Government published that advice, and accepted it in full.
The essence of the commission's advice is that it should continue to be the health and safety regulatory body for the coal industry, that the Health and Safety Executive should be the enforcement authority, and that the framework of legislation must be sufficiently robust to command the continued confidence of the industry and to ensure that health and safety standards are maintained or improved.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: On that point—

Mr. Heseltine: The commission's advice is that there is already a comprehensive framework of law governing the mining industry, with a rigorous inspection and enforcement regime. The commission believes that the work that it has been doing since 1983 to modernise that framework will make an important contribution to ensuring that it is adequate to the demands of a privatised industry.
The commission has also taken steps to ensure that the best practice in British Coal's existing owners' instructions continues to be applied throughout the industry. The work to achieve that is now largely completed. Draft regulations were laid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 1 October last year to give legal status to a number of the most important requirements of British Coal's safety instructions.
The commission has also recommended that there should continue to be a national rescue service. The commission will consult widely about the way forward. The Bill reflects the advice that we have received from the commission.
Another issue of fundamental concern to employees and former employees of British Coal is pension provision. I am determined that the pension entitlements of those who have given their working lives to the industry, and their dependants, should be fully respected and safeguarded in the process of privatisation. A consultation paper on proposals for British Coal pensions after privatisation was published in September last year. Comments were received from the trustees of the British Coal schemes, from the corporation, from industry unions and from more than 1,000 individuals.
After careful consideration of all the responses to the consultation paper, on 2 December we announced our decisions. All pensioners and deferred pensioners of the mineworkers' pension scheme and the staff superannuation scheme and all currently contributing members will be able to leave their past service entitlements in the schemes, which, on privatisation, will be closed to new members. New industry-wide pension schemes will be created for employees of British Coal and its subsidiaries who are transferred to employment in successor companies.
The Bill provides for the closed schemes to be given a Government solvency guarantee that will ensure that pensions and deferred pensions are increased annually after privatisation, in line with the retail price index by reference to their level at privatisation. In addition, beneficiaries will be able to benefit from any fund surpluses through pension payment increases over and above RPI levels. The new industry-wide schemes will provide the same package of


benefits as the corresponding main scheme. Employees transferred to the new schemes will be given protected person status under the Bill.
The Government believe that those proposals meet in full our commitment to protect pensions under the two existing schemes. The proposals will provide security for pension entitlements earned from service with British Coal and will provide protection for pension entitlements from future service with successor companies. The Bill provides the necessary statutory underpinning for all the- safeguards proposed.
Next, I refer to concessionary fuel entitlements. I am again determined that they should be properly safeguarded. A consultation paper on this subject was published in October. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy yesterday announced our conclusions. Responsibility for meeting the entitlements of former employees and their dependants will be transferred to the Government. Successor companies will be responsible for the entitlements of British Coal employees who transfer to them.
I believe that our policies for the treatment of pensions and concessionary fuel fully meet the Government's commitment to safeguard entitlements, and are fair to beneficiaries and to taxpayers. They will provide welcome and essential reassurance to many mining families that their hard-earned entitlements will not be jeopardised.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No. I have given many times.
The Bill addresses the issues of subsidence. There must be proper protection for the rights of householders and others who may be affected by coal-mining subsidence. A large part of the Bill is devoted to establishing a strong regulatory regime for that purpose.
The Coal Authority will take over all British Coal's existing responsibilities for subsidence, except in clearly defined areas where licensees will be responsible. Householders will therefore be in no doubt against whom to claim. It is an enabling power. We have yet to take final decisions as to the extent of the areas for which licensees will be responsible. Obviously, that will need careful consideration, bearing in mind the interests of the industry, the taxpayer, and, of course, the claimants.
The Coal Authority is given a strong duty to ensure that licensees make proper financial provisions for meeting claims, and the power to require that security, possibly in the form of a trust, is provided.

Mr. Foulkes: Can the President give an assurance that the beneficiaries of concessionary coal will continue to receive coal if that is what they wish, and will not be forced to take cash in lieu?

Mr. Heseltine: The answer is yes. But as happens now, there will be arrangements for a financial exchange of those rights if it is agreed with the individuals concerned. The hon. Gentleman's point is well made.
After nearly 50 years in the public sector, the coal industry has acquired exactly the same myths as those that used to haunt other nationalised industries. It is commonly suggested that they can never match the efficiency of their competitors; that their future lies only in an endless continuation of taxpayers' subsidies of one sort or another;

that somehow or other they cannot attract significantly worthy management for the task in their control; and that, in the end, only politicians are fit to take the strategic decisions affecting their future. Time and time again, all those myths have been exposed and exploded. In case after case, they are myths.
This Bill will give the coal industry the opportunity to demonstrate that it can compete, it can stand on its own feet, it can attract managers who are the best in the world, and it is fit and able to take control of its destiny. I do not have the slightest doubt that the industry will make good use of that opportunity.
I look forward to the day when private sector coal companies will join other privatised companies as free-standing, competitive enterprises, carrying a new entrepreneurial spirit into the marketplaces of the world. To enable that to happen, we will privatise the coal industry. We will set the industry free to meet the challenges of the marketplace, to innovate, to compete and to win its rightful share in the diversified energy market in the years ahead. That is the Government's policy, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Robin Cook: The President has presented the Bill to the House in a speech which began with a light essay in history in which he was willing—indeed, enthusiastic—to take interventions, followed by a presentation of the detail of the Bill in which, perhaps wisely, he appeared to be extremely reluctant to take interventions.
My hon. Friends who listened carefully to the speech noticed that there was a gap. We heard about the details of the device by which the Government will privatise the coal industry. We heard about the arrangements for the claims of subsidence. We heard how the Government propose to resolve the bill that will be left for the pensioners of the two coal industry pension funds. It was proper that the President went on at such length about the pension arrangements, as there are now 20 times as many people with a claim on the pension fund as there are left among the dwindling few people working in the pits.
There was a gap in the speech. Although the House heard all the details about how the Government propose to privatise the pits, we did not hear how many pits will be left in the coal industry when it is privatised. The President told us about the arrangements for concessionary coal, hut he could not tell us how many pits will be there to dig the coal in the first place. He knows perfectly well how many pits will still be there at privatisation. If he does not know, he should take the Bill away and come back when he is able to answer that question.
On Friday, the Chief Secretary provided us with a timely warning of the threat of this great institution of Parliament being undermined by cynicism. I wholeheartedly agree that there is a danger of the House being undermined by cynicism. What undermines the House is the cynicism of Ministers who will not tell us what is common knowledge within their Departments. It is worse cynicism than that: it is the cynicism of Ministers who think that it is all right to brief the press privately on what they are not prepared to share with the House.
I give the example of The Times last Thursday. Someone told The Times how many pits will survive privatisation. The Times is quite confident that it knows


how many pits will be closed in the future; the article has the confidence of being accompanied by a photograph of the President of the Board of Trade. It tells us that six pits will close next February. Whoever told The Times did a thorough job, because the article names seven pits out of which the six will be chosen.
The same story also appeared in The Independent, and the same seven pits are named. If all those pits go, there will be only two left of the famous 12 pits which we were told would be reprieved by the White Paper last March. That White Paper is now so discredited that it makes the Government's tax proposals at the election appear to be models of probity and candour.
A remarkable feature of the list is that most of the pits that are to be closed next month were not even on the President's list of the original 31 pits for closure. They are pits that received a clean bill of health for their financial viability, and where there is no pretence of coal reserves being exhausted. If those seven pits close, they will take with them the 114 years' working life of their coal reserves. That is the scale of the coal reserves which we will lose as a result of the vandalism of pit closures.
The Times obligingly tells us how the closures will be presented to us next month. Those pits, we are told, will be not closed but merged. The pits will be shut down, miners will be sacked and the shafts will be plugged. However, the pits will not be closed. They will become merger-seeking pits.
I would not want Ministers to be embarrassed as they sit on the Front Bench by appearing to be less well-informed than The Times. I therefore give them the chance to prove that they know as much as The Times. Will they tell the House whether it is true that six pits will shut next February? [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] If it is not true, I will give way also. Can Ministers deny it? Can they tell us how many pits will survive until privatisation? I will give way to anyone on the Government Front Bench who feels that he knows as much as appeared in The Times.
I must warn the President of the Board of Trade: if we are to be lectured on cynicism by Government Members, I believe that nothing would demonstrate greater cynicism than to invite Parliament in January to debate and give a Second Reading to a Bill to privatise 22 pits, to proceed to Committee to consider the Bill line by line and then to announce in February, "We are sorry, there are now only 15 pits." That is all that will be left.
If the number is not 15, I will give way. I will give way to anyone on the Government Benches who finds his tongue and who can tell us how many pits will be there, because they know. I would not wish them to think that we believe that they are ignorant or that, like the Prime Minister, they did not read the briefing note or, if they did read it, they did not take it in. We know that they know.
There were 50 pits in operation at the time of the general election. In the next month or two, there may be only 15. There were 44,000 miners employed at the time of the general election. After the next round of closures, there may be 10,300 miners left in the whole of Britain, from Longannet to Point of Ayr. In two years, the Government have closed two thirds of the remaining pits and destroyed three quarters of the remaining jobs.
After that smashing of the industry, how dare the Government pretend to us that privatisation is intended to

strengthen the industry? It was to privatise the industry that the Government ran it down to a tiny profitable core. Privatisation brings a new threat of more closures. There is only one real asset which they have to privatise in the Bill, and that is the contracts of British Coal with the generators. The Bill may be selling the jobs of 10,000 miners and the local economy of whole communities. The one thing that the bidder will want to buy is the contract to supply the generators.
The contracts expire in March 1998. By the time privatisation is well down the road, there will be only three years left of those contracts. There is no guarantee that they will be renewed. If they are, there will certainly be another cut in the volume of coal unless the Government act to tackle the rigged market in which those contracts are given.
That is why the President of the Board of Trade has been unable to come to the House today with any expressions of interest from the big private corporations in mining. That is why Rio Tinto Zinc and Hanson are not named in the press reports of what will happen after privatisation. The President was unwise enough to say at a press conference on the day the Bill was published:
the short duration of contracts with the electricity industry would not deter buyers.
He even mentioned Hanson as a possible buyer. Unfortunately for him, on the same day, the chief executive of Hanson ruled out making a bid on the pithy ground that
short-term contracts are not our idea of fun.
The President looks like being stuck with bids from second-rank mining companies.
The danger is obvious to those of my hon. Friends with knowledge of the mining industry. It is that companies that must borrow to buy out British Coal will then run the pits with a single objective—to get their money back within the three years left in the contracts. My hon. Friends who have been down mines know that, once it has been decided to run down a pit, a lot of money can be made for a couple of years. One has simply to halt the development work that costs the money and rip out the coal that can be reached easily. The mining equivalent of looting leaves pits robbed of a long-term future.
If Ministers want to assure us that that will not be the outcome of privatisation, they can do so simply by plugging the most obvious hole in the Bill. The Bill provides the scheme by which the new coal authority will privatise the industry by granting licences to operate the present pits.
The clauses contain provisions for all sorts of tests to be made on operators' financial standing and credit rating, just to ensure that the Government get their money out of the measure. Clause 26 makes it perfectly clear what comes first when the coal authority judges an application for a licence—the financial terms on which a mere bid is made for that licence. Nowhere in the Bill is there a requirement on the applicant for a licence to submit a mining plan for a long-term future for the pits.
The test that we shall lay down as to whether privatisation will provide a long-term future for the coal industry will be contained in amendments in which we shall require those who apply for licences to submit a mining plan that will keep a deep-mine coal industry alive into the next century. If Ministers really believe the promises that they have made today that privatisation will provide a long-term future for the coal industry, they will welcome our amendments. They may even offer us drafting assistance to ensure that we get them right. But if


they resist the amendments, they will confirm what everyone in the industry knows—privatisation is pathetically irrelevant to the real pressures on the coal industry.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that, if he could have his way tonight and defeat the Bill, there would be a better and longer future for the coal industry in its present form, rather than if it were privatised so that it could compete and get a larger market?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's intervention conveniently takes me on to what we must do if we are to give coal a long-term, healthier future than at present. The answer to his question is that, if the Government genuinely wanted a long-term future for the coal industry, they would tackle the rigged market that arises from their privatisation of the electricity industry.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is ducking the question.

Mr. Cook: I am not ducking the question. The Government seek to duck the mistakes that they created when they privatised the electricity industry—mistakes that have given rise to the present pressures on the coal industry.
The problem for the coal industry is that it has been squeezed out of a fair share of electricity generation. The President talked of the long-term decline in electricity generation from coal. As recently as 1988—even under this Government—the Central Electricity Generating Board was planning to expand, not contract, coal generation. It applied for consent to build two new coal-fired stations and had prepared plans for a third.
The coal for those three power stations is equal to the output of the half dozen pits that the Government intend to close next month. Those plans were knocked on the head by the privatisation of electricity, a privatisation that opened the door to the dash for gas.
Last week we gained a new ally in our attempts to expose the fact that the privatised electricity market is rigged. The director of business planning at National Power, the biggest privatised electricity company of all, revealed its breakdown of generation costs. That shows that electricity from new gas-fired power stations is one third more expensive than electricity from the coal-fired stations that are being shut to make room for them. That does not even take account of the bogus subsidy offered in the White Paper. I do not take account of it, because the generators have not taken a penny of it.
I put to the President the question which I have asked in every debate on coal in the past year and to which I have received no answer. How can the Government pretend that there is not a rigged market when its effect is to reduce the market for coal even though it produces the cheapest electricity for the consumer? They should present a Bill not to privatise coal or to waste our time on another piece of their dogma but to end that rigged market. That is the way to provide a real future for coal.
The White Paper promised to take some measures to tackle that rigged market—not many, but one or two. One of the factors squeezing coal out of the market is that one of its biggest rivals, the nuclear industry, gets £1 billion subsidy a year. Subsidy is being poured into the most expensive source of electricity. Last month, the chief

executive of Scottish Power explained that electricity from nuclear power was now 50 per cent. more expensive than that from coal. However, so daft is the current market that nuclear power is being expanded and coal generation is being cut to make room for it.

Mr. Peter Hardy: In addition to my hon. Friend's comparison, will he comment on the fact that last week British Nuclear Fuels issued figures showing that the cost of decommissioning new nuclear power stations is less than 1/100th of 1p per kWh? In that context, the justification for the levy against coal-fired generation is completely non-existent.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee recommended that the nuclear power levy should be ring-fenced so that it was used specifically for decommissioning and not to subsidise current operations. The Committee also recommended that the nuclear review be brought forward to 1993. The Government accepted that, and the White Paper said that that review would be brought forward to 1993. In October, the Minister of State said that the nuclear review would be announced before the end of the year.
I may not carry the Minister of State with me on many issues, but I think that he will agree that we are past the end of 1993 and into 1994. The end of 1993 saw the end of another Government commitment, leaving the question as to how they can find the time, the energy and the priority to produce this thick Bill to privatise coal but cannot get down to the review of one of its main rivals and the biggest subsidised element in the energy industry.
Why cannot the Government do something about French imports, for which we are paying more than 3p per kWh—50 per cent. more than it costs to produce electricity from our own coal?

Mr. Richard Ottaway: We all know the answer to that.

Mr. Cook: Yes, we do. That is possible only because the Government extended the nuclear subsidy to French imports. Why are not they doing something to tackle that distortion of the rigged market instead of privatising coal? How can the privatisation of coal help in view of those blatant market distortions? Why should a privatised coal industry be any more successful than British Coal in selling coal in that rigged market? For that matter, why should a privatised coal industry be any more successful than British Coal in improving productivity? For the first time, the President acknowledged the remarkable productivity improvements under British Coal.
In the past 10 years, there has been a threefold increase in productivity and in the past year productivity has increased by more than one third. In nine of the past 10 months up to December, output per man shift broke all previous records. That is the achievement of the men down the pits who will be rewarded with closure next month —an achievement which outstrips that of any private industry. It is a public success story. Why can we not keep that success story in the public sector that made it possible in the first place?
One of the features that gives British Coal in the public sector an edge over private companies is that its gain in productivity did not go into private pockets or was not taken out in increased profits; it was passed on in reduced coal prices. In the 10 years to 1992, the price of coal came


down in real terms by 36 per cent. Since then, the new contract with the new price has reduced the price of coal by 27 per cent. in cash terms. The Government tell us that containing inflation is their top priority. How many private sector industries could claim to achieve the reduction in price that British Coal has achieved over the past five years?
The figures from National Power to which I referred earlier show that electricity can be generated from coal at a cost of 2·1p per kWh. It is currently sold at 2·8p per kWh. That is a mark-up of 33 per cent.—a rip-off produced by the last privatisation that Energy Ministers presented to the House. It is a rip-off at the expense of the consumer and the coal industry.
The President had the nerve to tell the House that nationalisation had created monopoly power. Privatisation will create monopoly power and the abuse of monopoly power. If the President is serious about monopoly power, why is he coming to the House today, not to privatise the coal industry, which has no power, but to address the mistakes made in the last privatisation by tackling the monopoly power of the two giant generators and sending them before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to explain why they are keeping up their prices when the price of the main fuel has fallen so markedly?
The coal industry does not need privatisation to show it how to increase productivity or cut prices. Miners do not need privatisation and they do not want privatisation. How can privatisation improve the safety of the men who work 2,000 ft below the surface of the earth? When those men drop down in cages to work in that dangerous environment, they do not want to think that the people in charge up above are thinking first about the profits of the company. They come from coal communities and they remember when profit was the first priority of the pit owners.
The greatest achievement of the public coal industry was to make Britain's pits the safest in the world—an achievement that is most prized by the men who work in it. Australia has the next safest mining industry in the world and its fatal accident rate is double that of Britain. That is not due to the regulations that the President lays down. British Coal has achieved that safety record because throughout British Coal there is—and it is a story of achievement—a safety culture that permeates every coal-face.
The danger is that, by destroying the structure that created that culture, the Government will destroy the safety to which it gave rise. Why do they propose to tamper with that success story and put it at risk by destroying the structure of the industry that made it possible?
Privatisation will not improve the pensions of the men who have already been pensioned off. The trustees of the pension fund have registered 17 areas of concern about the Government proposals on pensions. They relate to the same issue.
Schedule 5, which deals with pensions, contains no fewer than 20 references to the powers of the Secretary of State. There has been an oversight here. It is about time that the President drew it to the attention of the parliamentary draftsmen that he is no longer Secretary of State but wishes legislation to refer to the powers of the President. Whatever name he chooses, for the first time a Secretary of State has

sweeping powers over the miners' pension funds—powers to sack the trustees and powers to require them to use the national interest to override the interests of the miners.
The issue is not whether the pensions will be index-linked to inflation but how any increase in the value of funds will be divided between the Secretary of State and the miners who have created that fund by paying into it. The last person that the members of those pension fund schemes will accept as capable of giving them a fair division of the fund is the person who has taken away their jobs.
I come to the final reason why the privatisation of coal does not make sense. To Conservative Members this may be the clinching reason. The final reason why privatisation does not make sense is that the Treasury will not benefit.
We always knew that, when we opposed the privatisation of electricity, we were wasting our breath. There was a great deal of money to be made from it and the Treasury would steamroller it through whatever the arguments. When the Government discovered that they would not make money out of privatising the nuclear industry, they left it in the private sector.
There is never much money in a fast sell and the Government will not get much money from selling off the rump of the much-reduced coal industry. They will be lucky to get back one third of the money they have poured out in redundancy payments in the past year alone. Not only will the Treasury not get much money, but it will be left with the liabilities for subsidence, for example. The Treasury will get the worst possible deal. It will be left with historic liabilities from the old coalfields without any of the revenue from the current operating pits to help pay for it.
Privatisation is not needed to get the gains in productivity that the coal industry has achieved for itself. It will not resolve the real problems of the coal industry which arise from the privatisation of the electric industry. It will not even make the Government money, so why are they pressing ahead with the privatisation of coal?
It has nothing to do with what is good for the coal industry. That came out strongly in the ideological preamble to the President's speech. The privatisation of the coal industry has everything to do with what is bad about the Government's dogma.
Lord Parkinson first told us that coal would be privatised in a speech to the 1988 Conservative party conference. He described it as the ultimate privatisation. It was also Lord Parkinson who in October 1992 told us the real reason for the closure of 31 pits with when he told "The World at One" that we should never forget that the miners brought down a Conservative Government. The Government never forgot it and as they sink lower in the polls, caught in a web of their own deceits and buried in the rubble of the industries they have destroyed and the public services they have run down, they are determined to take the miners with them.
The Bill is rich in symbolism. I began by reminding the House that the Chief Secretary had given us a sermon on cynicism. The deepest hypocrisy of the Chief Secretary lecturing us on the cynicism undermining national institutions is the fact that he has devoted his entire political career to undermining the national institutions of the post-war settlement—institutions that for 30 years fostered political consensus in a stable society.
A prominent part of the post-war settlement was the nationalisation of the coal industry. For 30 years until the 1970s we had full employment, an excellent national


health service and an education service of which we could be proud. Part of that settlement was the nationalisation of the mining industry. It offered an alternative way of running an industry based on respect for the rights of men who worked underground at the coal face. It was an alternative way of running the industry motivated by the need of the nation for energy, not the desire of owners for profit. The Government cannot comprehend those values. That is why they want to destroy the coal industry. That is why they have found time for this pathetic, irrelevant little Bill.
Of course the Government will win the vote tonight. But the Conservative party is so terrorised by the packs snapping at every straggler that they will all be found huddled together for safety in the same Lobby. I must tell the President that, long after today's speeches are forgotten and he and I are remembered only by our children and their children, the public ownership of coal will be remembered as a brave attempt to provide decency and dignity at work in the foulest conditions, to give expression to the common purpose of the nation by asserting the right of the nation to own the sources of its energy. The Government's betrayal of that great industry and the final insult of this mean little Bill will be remembered as a display of dogma and vindictiveness. We will reject their betrayal of the coal industry tonight, and history will reject that betrayal throughout the century.

Mr. Michael Alison: Whatever else one might say about the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), it cannot be construed by any stretch of the imagination as a welcome for the Coal Industry Bill. I am glad that, just before the Christmas recess last year, British Coal and its chairman, Neil Clarke; took a rather different line from that of the hon. Gentleman. Neil Clarke welcomed the introduction of legislation to return coal mining to the private sector. I echo his welcome unequivocally as one who represents the modern Selby complex of five integrated and interconnected mines employing some 3,500 people.
Neil Clarke observed realistically enough:
The market realities will remain, whatever structure emerges from the privatisation process
But he went on to say:
Privatisation will help free the industry from some outdated restrictions. It will also allow the interests of coal mining in Britain and the people who work in it to be pursued separately from the interests of Government.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alison: I shall make a little more progress and then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.
That formal farewell wave by British Coal to the embrace of Government is worth dwelling on for a moment. No industry in Britain has demonstrated so vividly and starkly that state ownership is no panacea and cannot inoculate an industry, however venerable, however widespread, against the pervasive realities of costs, competitiveness and market alternatives.
As all hon. Members who are present will know, the coal industry has been clasped to the breast of Government for nearly half a century in Britain, and by an almost perverse reversal of nature, instead of a suckling infant becoming progressively bigger and stronger over those

post-war decades, a viable adult hitched to the paps of Government in 1947 has become progressively weaker and more infantile. The figures of decline are simply astonishing: 718,400 National Coal Board employees in 1947 down to 250,000 by the time Mrs. Thatcher came into office in 1979, with output down from 200 million tonnes in 1947 to about 120 million tonnes today.

Ms Armstrong: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a specific question about the public responsibility arising from the consequences of coal mining, whoever owns the mines. It is about the responsibility to the land and to the environment, which will continue for generations and for many a long year beyond anything that we do today. Does he agree that that responsibility, for example, for ensuring that water continues to be pumped from the redundant mines, must lie with Government and that the Bill must address that fully so that in constituencies such as mine someone will accept responsibility for ensuring that the real danger of serious environmental damage is not allowed to arise?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady's intervention strikes an echo in my mind and, I am sure, in the minds of many of my hon. Friends. Indeed, that is why the Bill as drafted, postulating the existence and future of the Coal Authority with an indefinate lifespan and with many responsibilities already spelt out, which no doubt will be further spelt out in Committee. This is precisely the mechanism that will ensure that her misgivings are properly attended to.
Even at its lowest evaluation, privatisation could hardly preside over a more dismal decline in a state-owned industry than that which is now on record in the decline from the 718,400 employees in 1947 to the 31,700—a tiny fraction of the original body—that exists today. In my view, privatisation offers an attractive and reassuring prospect of future stability and profitability to the five mines, at least in the Selby complex, into which huge sums of capital have been poured by the Conservative Government.
Productivity at Selby is about four times the British Coal average—30 tonnes output per man shift compared with about the 5 to 8 tonnes national average. If it was run as an independent mining enterprise, Selby could produce and sell coal at prices per tonne that could comfortably beat off any foreign coal at present on offer at any British port, let alone inland. Selby sits cheek by jowl with three of the largest power stations in the kingdom—Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge. Furthermore, its productivity and output can only get better under privatisation. Hence, its prospects are brighter.

Mr. Etherington: The right hon. Gentleman made reference to the 50 years of close contact between the Government and the coal industry. He stated that he thought that privatisation would be much better. Would he care to refer to the 50 years prior to that, when we had a privatised coal industry which was a blight and disgrace on any civilised nation? Does he accept that we are likely to revert back to those standards when we go back to the same criteria for operating an industry, which will surely come when private enterprise takes over again?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman undermines his own argument. If he looks back over the span of nationalisation, going right back to vesting day in 1947, he will see that there was then, as I argued recently, a manpower


dimension of 718,400 employees in the coal industry and an output of 200 million tonnes a year. That did not come just by flicking the fingers at the moment of nationalisation. It represents a long evolution of 50 years, which the hon. Gentleman attempts to discredit.
That was the treasure and the prize that was placed on the plate of Parliament to nationalise. If it had been such a discreditable, unconstructive and useless period, why was it that the point of nationalisation was the high point of output, quantity and quality in the coal industry? Since then, it has gone steadily and consistently down. That heritage is not to be discredited.
I was saying that the prospects already for Selby are very bright because of its astonishing capacity in terms of output per man shift. Even as one of British Coal's star performers at present, there are shortcomings in efficiency in the Selby complex, particularly in relation to the waste of materials and the somewhat cavalier attitude sometimes taken towards stock control. That shortcoming will be familiar to those whose employment has straddled both public and private sector industrial activity.
Experience of the electricity generating industry is a familiar guidepost in that respect. I received briefings on inefficiency and waste from miners who have worked overground and underground at the Selby complex, and believe that a yet better prospect for output, productivity and profitable coal sales will loom under privatisation.
I hope that an experienced, perhaps international mining or extraction company will perceive the jewel that glitters in the Selby coalfield and seek to bid for it. The hon. Member for Livingston mentioned National Power and PowerGen in particular. Local generators should not overlook the marvellous asset that lies so close to hand. National Power has just invested millions of pounds in a flue gas desulphurisation plant at Drax and is thus committed to coal for many years. It should certainly consider a bid for the hand, so to speak, of the Selby complex.
The closeness of that profitable mining operation to huge power stations suggests that one third of British Coal's entire prospective output of 30 million tonnes a year within the next few years could be produced at the Selby complex alone. That is a profitable and attractive basis not only for maintaining Selby's existing output but for increasing it. I believe that privatisation offers that.
I want my right hon. Friend the President to register one or two cautionary notes. The industry's effective restructuring will depend crucially on the skills and dedication of relatively few key miners and managers, whose services will be essential in putting privatisation in place.
In the worst scenario, one such miner or manager might deliberately forgo the option of early retirement or redundancy and suffer the loss of a huge redundancy payment out of his dedication to seeing the transition through to its conclusion—only to find that he had inadvertently done himself out of a subsequent long-term post in the new structure and had forgone his entitlement to the redundancy package to which he might have been eligible, had he chosen redundancy, and thus ends up with nothing.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will put such possibilities under a microscope. Without his action to

safeguard prospects and future employment, the maintenance of essential morale and motivation at all levels will falter—particularly among those who will be responsible for seeing through the transition.
I am deeply concerned about one or two narrower but significant aspects, and echo points made to me this afternoon by representatives of the Country Landowners Association. A compulsory rights order is a form of compulsory purchase order that applies to leases, with reversions at the end. CROs are used by British Coal for the acquisition, for example, of temporary rights for opencast operations. CROs are a familiar phenomenon at present, but it seems inappropriate for the new private companies or licence holders to enjoy the almost absolute, draconian power that British Coal currently enjoys through the CRO machinery. In the new privatised environment, normal private treaty negotiations should be the order of the day between private licensed holders and private landowners and the CRO procedure made redundant.
I am concerned also about the future of working rights agreements, which are used and operated by British Coal but which are apparently destined for transfer intact and unmodified to the new private licence holders and owners. The unqualified transfer of WRAs would be inappropriate. Most were concluded by British Coal and private landowners under the somewhat coercive shadow of the possible use of compulsory rights orders, so WRAs were reached under modest duress. Most made only cursory provisions for current payments, terminal payments or indemnity payments to make good damage done when the agreements come to an end.
The cursory character of such agreements has not mattered much in the past because behind the National Coal Board or British Coal lay the vast resources of the Exchequer. Everyone knew that the various payments for which WRAs provided would ultimately be available. No such basic security will exist in respect of the private company heirs and successors to British Coal, which may find themselves in real financial difficulty at certain points in their operation. Current WRAs should be updated and revised, and any that apply to prospective operations should be surrendered. It would not be appropriate to carry through that mechanism into the new structure without modification and amendment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give that some thought.
Landowners should have the right of notification when licence bidders apply to the authority, in the same way as they receive information when a local authority causes a planning application to be made public and drawn to the attention of all and sundry in the surrounding countryside. The same should apply with prospective licence holders, so that people on the ground know what is in prospect. Two thirds of the Country Landowners Association's members are owners of fewer than 100 acres—mostly farmers. It is essential that their modest inhibitions and doubts should come under close scrutiny by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, probably in Committee, and that appropriate amendments be made.
Unlike the hon. Member for Livingston, and on behalf of the Selby complex—which has a glittering future—I warmly welcome the provisions that my right hon. Friend has introduced today. I hope that the Bill will mark a new era for many miners and many mines throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: I want to raise several matters of concern. It is a pity that the President of the Board of Trade is leaving the Chamber, because I wanted to refer to his typical performance this afternoon, which was long on rhetoric and short on detail. No doubt most Opposition Members will endeavour to extract that detail. I hope that the Minister who replies will take note of the comments by Opposition Members with many years' experience of the industry.
I need hardly make clear my personal view of the principle of the Bill. I am firmly opposed to privatisation. The Government have spent many months preparing the ground for privatisation, beginning the process back in October 1992 with a mass closure programme. They were determined then—as they still are—to reduce the industry to what they consider a manageable size: between 10 and 15 pits. They have effectively undermined the industry's safety structure with measures that they introduced while Parliament was in recess, showing their complete contempt for parliamentary democracy.
Those of us who have spent many years of our lives in the industry were horrified by the proposal to deregulate the industry in preparation for privatisation. The Government's plans prove that they are fundamentally concerned with ideology and their continuing grudge against the coal industry, rather than with what is best for the industry and the country as a whole.
As Ministers well know, the industry's problem is not the question of ownership, but the question of market share. It has lost its market share as a direct result of the Government's energy policy—or, rather, their lack of an energy policy. The Government failed to redress the imbalance that they had created, because it was all part of their master plan. They allowed the electricity companies to move away from coal, encouraged the dash for gas and sat back while regional electricity companies made long-term deals to ensure that they could control the supply of gas that they bought. The privatised companies will profit; the taxpayer and the consumer will lose.
As a direct result of the faults in the Government's thinking, pits have been closed on a massive scale—and there are more closures to come. There are now only 22 working collieries in British Coal, compared with 50 in October 1992, and recent newspaper reports suggest that the Government's axe is dangling over a further seven. No doubt Ministers are pleased that they seem to be meeting their original target, and do not care about the misery that they have brought to thousands of miners and their families.
Interested parties are worried chiefly about the number of holes in the Bill. We are being asked to vote for a measure that is only half complete. Vital concerns—concerns of great importance to mining communities such as those in north Doncaster—have yet to be resolved fully, or even addressed. The number of job losses is immense: 180,000 jobs have been lost since the strike of 1984–85. My area has just lost its last two pits, Bentley and Hatfield, which has meant the loss of more than 700 jobs. That does not include all the jobs lost through redundancy in previous months.
However, despite the appalling problems with which mining communities have been presented, the Bill is silent about the Government's plans for the future of British Coal Enterprise. Only passing mention is made of BCE, which

is a wholly owned subsidiary of British Coal. It is important for the Government to make clear what they intend to do with BCE. The services that it provides are needed more than ever, given the increased number of pit closures: the Government must ensure that that source of help for men who have lost their jobs, and for local businesses, is maintained in the months and years ahead. I hope that Ministers will be able to give us more details about their intentions—if not today, in the near future.
The Bill is also relatively silent about the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, known as CISWO. Although it provides for the abolition of the Miners' Welfare Act 1952, it sets out no alternatives. I hope that the Minister will soon be able to dispel the uncertainty that still surrounds CISWO's future; I know that he has been examining the position, and I believe that we would all have liked to hear concrete proposals today.
CISWO plays an important role in mining communities. It provides recreational facilities such as welfare halls, playing fields and social clubs, as well as providing important social services such as convalescent homes. Its social work helps disabled miners and their families. If the Bill makes no provision for them, those services could well be lost to local communities. That would be a huge loss, which would place additional burdens both on local authorities such as Doncaster metropolitan borough council and on the mining communities themselves.
Many people would be affected by the loss of CISWO's services. The whole mining community can use its recreational facilities, and it estimates that more than half a million people may require its assistance. Those people's needs must be recognised. I call on the Minister to ensure that full provision is made for the continuation of CISWO's work, so that local authorities are not left to carry the financial can.
So far, CISWO has been financed by proceeds from the coal industry and miners' contributions. Adequate provision must be made to ensure that its services are maintained and that help is available to keep them going; otherwise, elderly and disabled people will suffer, and valuable facilities used by the whole community will be lost.
There is also concern about the pension fund changes announced by the Minister in December—in a pretty diabolical way, by means of a parliamentary answer. I understand that discussions about the operation of the funds following privatisation are still taking place; I hope, however, that the Minister will be able to respond to anxieties raised by the trustees of both pension schemes about the extent of the Secretary of State's powers over the funds. Pensioners are entitled to know that the money that they have worked hard to earn is safe, and that it will continue to pay them a decent pension in the years to come.
Pensioners are also entitled to know that the Government will guarantee to increase benefit levels if necessary. The Government's present proposals mean that, as a guarantor of the scheme, they should be able to cream off a large part of the surplus. Unless they can provide a cast-iron guarantee that pensions will be increased by more than the retail prices index, many pensioners will rightly feel that they are being ripped off.
The Bill is totally inadequate. It contains no plans for an overall energy policy, and no recognition of the fact that the private sector failed in the marketplace when it was last in control of the industry. The Government cannot even justify their proposals on the basis of their most popular


argument—that nationalised industries are overstaffed and inefficient. Not even the Tories can say that about the present coal industry.
Only last week British Coal boasted about the latest productivity records. Miners broke the record of 10 tonnes per man shift for the first time in the industry's history. So the legislation is not about dealing with an inefficient industry. It is purely and simply about the Tory dogma of privatisation. In pursuit of it, the Tories have wreaked havoc in our communities.
Only this Tory Government could be stupid enough to destroy an industry that should be supplying our base energy needs. Their theory is simple: if it is public, it is no good, and do not let the facts get in the way of a good privatisation. These people are manic about privatisation no matter the cost in money or human misery. From public funds, the Government will gladly take care of the billions of pounds of liabilities and let their friends in the public sector cream off the millions of pounds of profits.
I stress that there is absolutely no justification for the privatisation. The Government know it, we know it, the miners know it and the public know it. The only things that could possibly come out of coal privatisation are higher electricity bills, the sterilisation of a magnificent national asset, a return to unsafe practices underground and the destruction of our coalfield communities.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. Perhaps at the outset I should declare an interest. I am a partner in a large firm of solicitors and among our clients we have had many people who are affected in many different ways by the coal industry and will have a strong interest in the outcome of the Bill.
I have always been a strong supporter of privatisation. Everything that I have seen of the privatisation process so far has confirmed that belief. Companies have outstandingly improved their performance in the private sector simply because the basic management decisions are left to those who run the industry instead of managers being always second-guessed by the Government. I can see no reason why the coal industry should not also be the beneficiary of that process. I believe that the coal industry has suffered considerably because it was so far down the queue of privatisation in an energy industry most other members of which have already been able to reap the benefits of freedom.
I wish to raise four specific points which I imagine will affect many of my colleagues in the House as well as myself and my constituency. The first point is about coal-fired power stations. It would have been far better, had it been possible, for the coal industry to be privatised in the 1980s as a package of power stations and the coalfields supplying them. The great weakness that the coal industry has suffered in a competitive environment is that it can sell coal only to a relatively small handful of customers whereas it ought to be able to sell electricity competitively.
In the past two or three years, groups of people have looked at the prospects for putting power stations and coalfields together, but the idea has always foundered on the rock of PowerGen and National Power insisting on unreasonable prices for redundant coal-fired power

stations. It should be put clearly on the record at this stage that that is unacceptable and uncompetitive. If it means a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, so be it.
The coal industry must have the opportunity of access to the provision of electricity so that we can expand and enhance the competitive energy environment in this country. If the course of privatisation had not been distorted by the miners' strike in the 1980s, such a system would already have been in place.
My second point is about the industrial health of individual miners. I understand that the Bill provides that those who have retired from the industry before privatisation and those who retire on privatisation will retain intact any claims directly or indirectly against the Government resulting from ill health perhaps derived from events early in their mining careers. Equally, I understand —the principle must be right, that those miners who transfer to the private sector will have their rights transferred with them primarily against the private sector company which employs them.
It is important that the Government give a clear undertaking that if, for example, a miner in his mid-40s who, in the early part of his career suffered the cause of an industrial injury which appears much later in his life, goes into the private sector and if that private company fails for some reason or another, perhaps in circumstances in which there are unsatisfactory insurance arrangements for the company's liability, his residual rights relating to his period of employment with British Coal will remain intact. It is vital in justice and equity that those rights should not be extinguished.
Thirdly, I wish to deal with the powers of compulsory purchase. It is one thing for the public sector to exercise compulsory purchase powers; it is another thing for those powers to be transferred to the private sector. My hon. Friend the Minister must make it clear that there will be no fundamental change in the way in which those powers are exercised as a consequence of the privatisation of the coal industry.
The whole issue of compulsory purchase for coal should be put on exactly the same footing as the gravel industry or any other opencasting or quarrying activity in the private sector. I know that my hon. Friend envisages a transition period, but I would require persuading that such a transition period, is necessary. If it is necessary, excessive use of compulsory purchase powers should not become a blight for many of our constituents during the interim period. In other words, I wish to see the public sector, through the coal authority, maintain tight control over the exercise of compulsory purchase powers and ensure that the exercise of those powers comes firmly within the general area of Government accountability.
The fourth point that I wish to raise is, for my constituency, the most important—the general issue of opencasting. It relates to part II of the Bill and its interaction with the consultation exercise now under way on mineral planning guidance 3. The interaction of the Bill with planning law will be of the gravest possible concern to many Members of Parliament and their constituents across areas where there have been coal workings in the past and which now face a huge rash of new opencast applications.
It must be clear that, in most circumstances, there is no longer any national priority to justify the extraction of opencast coal. It is the opposite. If we agree that there is a


need to maintain a strategic reserve of coal for the future for unforeseen circumstances, opencastable coal is the best way of preserving that strategic reserve while we use the already developed deep-mined coal.
I am not completely opposed to opencasting. Three separate issues have to be addressed which I should like to illustrate in the context of my constituency. Where there is dereliction, opencasting can be the best way of dealing with it. In my constituency we had a huge site at St. Aidan's which was flooded when the river wall between the River Aire and the Aire and Calder canal collapsed causing a massive problem in the constituency. There was widespread consultation on the methods of dealing with that problem, extensive involvement of the local community and the local authority granted planning consent for further opencasting with the support of all parties. A private Bill came before the House in the previous Session of Parliament.
That seems an entirely appropriate way in which opencasting can provide for dealing with dereliction and the enhancement of the countryside and the environment when that opencasting has been completed. In the interim, it will often provide a substantial financial gain to local community groups as part of the exercise. It has certainly done so in my constituency.
I also accept that, when a major new road programme runs across existing or past mine workings, there is a strong case—within the confines of that programme, in terms of the time allowed and of restricting work to the most limited area necessary—for allowing coal to be taken ahead of road building, so that the land can be graded and the roal built more easily and expeditiously. The A1-M1 link road will go through my constituency and no doubt opencast coal mining applications will be made so that the route can be stabilised; I accept that that will be necessary.
However, nowadays, when environmental issues are far more important, it is not acceptable for opencast applications to be made for green-field sites, where there is no dereliction. Such applications are being made for the most sensitive areas of green belt in my constituency. There are a variety of important and exceptionally sensitive green belt areas around Garforth in my constituency, separating the Garforth community from the Leeds conurbation on one side and from Kippax village on the other. That is the core of planning, and I want it clearly spelled out that local planning authorities can reject unsuitable applications on environmental and planning grounds.
I have considered carefully part II of the Bill and the MPG3 consultation document which has been published by the Department of the Environment. I recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot provide me with answers today because a consultation process is under way, which will expire in a couple of months. Having looked at the consultation document, I submit my speech as part of that consultation process. When one is attracting high-quality world-class investment in manufacturing industry, as is the case in Garforth, where there is a good environment and the planning ethos of the area has long since moved from its roots in the coal industry, it must be clear that there will be good and satisfactory grounds for rejecting opencast applications.
The consultation document refers to the role of unitary development plans. In West Yorkshire, we already have the benefit of unitary authorities, and in the Leeds area we

are engaged in a major consultation exercise, which will shortly result in the commencement of public inquiries for our unitary development plan. I see that there is also scope within that plan for a minerals plan
From reading the documents, I do not know the extent to which the exercises can be put together. If the unitary development plan specifies that certain areas must be left as open land, to protect the separate identities of communities and the quality of the environment for developments in those communities, that should be honoured in the planning process and should not be overridden by opencast applications. That must be right, not merely from the point of view of people who live in the area but from that of the opencast industry, which does not want to incur the odium of public protest time and again and ought to focus clearly on those areas where opencast mining will be acceptable rather than those where it will not.
I am happy for the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and will watch with great interest how the debate develops in Committee and during the consultation process on MPG3. I hope that, by the time that the Bill returns to this Chamber on Report, the answers to those questions and to the three questions that I have asked earlier will be clearly answered. If my hon. Friend the Minister is to carry many of my colleagues with him on Report and Third Reading, we must be given clear answers on those issues.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Tonight's debate is about the long-term future of our main non-renewable source of energy. The background to the debate—judging by what the President of the Board of Trade said, it is much delayed as far as the Tories are concerned—is that the coal industry has been in decline for 20 years. We all know that that is because of the decrease in sales to the electricity supply industry, which is its principal market.
The way in which the Government dealt with that industry, especially in the past 10 years, and the fact that it has moved to using gas-fired power stations has caused the gradual dying of the coal industry. The domination of electricity generation by the two companies that the Government set up—National Power and PowerGen—and the monopoly in distribution, which has been given to one regional electricity company in each area, have had the coal industry by the neck.
We could have had, and still could have, an energy-efficient and cleaner coal industry. Coal is a natural mineral resource, which remains a crowning national asset. If the Government had wanted to liberalise the market, they could have done so without jeopardising efficiency or the security of supply. Instead, because of the way in which the Government tackled the electricity industry several years ago, they have made it impossible for the coal industry to survive at a size at which it could otherwise have done.
The President of the Board of Trade, like his colleague the Prime Minister, has obviously not read the documents produced by the Liberal Democrats. That is a common Government failing. Perhaps they are also failing to read the opinion polls. If they had read both, they might be doing better.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, he appears to have done so.
We have never opposed the privatisation of the coal industry. However, we have opposed and will oppose, which is why we will vote against the Bill tonight—

Mr. Peter Atkinson: On one hand, and on the other.

Mr. Hughes: Not at all. We have been consistent throughout and have always made it clear that we cannot expect the coal industry to survive as one of the sources of energy supply if we rig the market to its disadvantage in advance. Unless coal is allowed to compete fairly, it will be fighting with one hand tied behind its back. The central issue is not whether coal should be in the public or the private sector.
What opportunity is there for the coal industry to sell its product? The market has not changed during the past 10 years from the perception of the Government. The President of the Board of Trade may tell us that one reason why coal has done badly is that it was not privatised several years ago, but that would be a bit rich from a Government who have privatised everything else and could have put coal on the agenda a decade ago.
What has happened? During the past few years the industry has died the death of about 50 cuts—27 mines have already closed, four are out for market testing and there are only 18 to go. The former Secretary of State for Energy called it the "ultimate privatisation". None of us realised that "ultimate privatisation" meant privatisation when everything else had gone and there was nothing left to privatise.
We have inherited as a race the black energy jewel of coal in our energy-diverse crown; yet, years before the sale, the Government took away the glass case of any protection. They then, in the disguise of the electricity generators, sent in people to smash, and now they will put up the industry for others to grab. What the Tories destroy they later sell off.
It should not, and need not, have been like that. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, correctly, that coal, without distorting subsidy to other sectors, is still cheaper than two of its main competitor industries. It is cheaper than nuclear power, which has had a persistent and consistent subsidy from the Government—the only reason why the Government did not privatise the nuclear industry was that they realised that no one would buy it—and it is cheaper than electricity derived from gas.
The figures were provided last week. The figures for electricity produced, as given by the bosses of National Power, are 2·7p per kWh in relation to gas and 2·1 per kWh in relation to coal. That difference in cost could have made up for the cost of fitting and running flue gas desulphurisation equipment at Drax. One could have used the differential money to do to the power stations what was necessary to improve them in environmental terms. Coal has never lost in terms of competitiveness, it has never lost in terms of its price advantage and it has never failed—the figures continue to improve—in its productivity. We have produced British coal increasingly effectively and efficiently.
The words used by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), in his personal statement came to

mind when, in the past few days, I was thinking about the debate today. He said to the Prime Minister, in his first speech from the Back Benches:
I now wish to say one thing to him; it goes to the heart of the way in which the Government conduct themselves. There is something wrong with the way in which we make our decisions … As a result, there is too much short-termism … not enough shaping of events … We are, … the trustees of the nation."—[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c.282.]
Tonight, we are watching the final act of a policy that, above all, is a short-term policy. First, it was a short-term employment policy. Just when the country wanted, and needed as nothing else, more people to be employed, the Government stood by and allowed pit after pit to close and community after community effectively to be put out of work.
Secondly, it was a short-term economic policy because it was, and remains, in the economic interests of our nation that we produce cheap coal, not only so that we can buy it at home for the uses at home and do not have to import it and buy it from abroad, but so that we can sell it abroad too —we have some of the best coal in the world.
Thirdly, it was a short-term energy policy, because, if one cuts out of the alternatives that supply of which we have the largest reserves, if one takes away and closes pits that one then cannot reopen, one reduces the diversity and the security of supply that we may need when the dash for gas is no longer as economically advantageous as it is at the moment.
It is that neglect of long-termism—that adoption of short-termism—for which we criticise the Government's energy policy and for which, sadly, we have had to criticise the Government on so many other issues over the years.
Coal offered, and still offers, security, diversity and competitiveness of supply. It offers good productivity, good quality and good competitiveness. It lacked only a chance to have a fair crack of the whip. All of us who have been down pits—even those of us who have not been employed in pits—ought to pay tribute to those who have so well served the industry, fought for it and kept Britain served by the power from the industry. It is not their fault that there has been no national planning, no national strategy and no reconciliation of the interests of coal, gas, oil, potentially nuclear power—although my party opposes it—and renewable energy sources.
The issue has never been, "Who owns the pits?" The issue has always been, "Why rig the market?" The prospects for coal—the title of the Government's paper of a year ago—were determined when the Government fixed the structure for electricity at the very start of its term.
Whatever our view about how we got here, some questions are not answered by the Bill. There is no clear sign that the Government are committed to keeping coal as a national asset indefinitely, as we believe that they should. Coal should be a Crown asset for all time and only licences to extract and to mine should be given. The rights to ownership of the coal should never be given away.
Questions about the historic liabilities are also left unanswered. The Minister knows well that through, for example, subsidence claims, there are significant and costly liabilities that will cross over the transition from the public sector to the private sector. I gather that the claims in 1992–93 in relation to subsidence alone were about £46 million. Who will pay those claims? If the plan is for them to be transferred in part to the new owners, what is the prospect of the new owners buying if they have to inherit an unquantified amount of liability as part of the package?


There are worries—there have been interventions and contributions on the subject—about a range of environmental liabilities. The first of those worries is about contaminated mine water, the subject of an intervention by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) when the President opened the debate. The National Rivers Authority has told the Government that it has inadequate powers to deal with pollution from water from abandoned mines. There have been dramatic illustrations of that, and not only in coal mines—for example, Wheal Jane in Cornwall only a few months ago. The liability needs to be determined and, above all, the resources need to be put in. They need to be national resources and it is the responsibility of the Government to supply them.
There is no provision in the Bill for long-term liability for gas emissions, a common danger with our pits. The Minister for Energy said recently that the Government would ensure that all current responsibilities in respect of the physical legacy of historic mining would continue to be discharged, and that those that were not taken by successor bodies would' fall to the public sector. Before the Bill can be approved, people need to know which fall where and which the Government will keep to themselves.
The most important environmental topic was the subject of the speech by the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste)—opencast mining. If we are not careful, we shall not have given up the need for coal, but we shall have substituted for using deep-mined coal in mines that are already there, opencast mining in the countryside, where it is far less acceptable and often far less advantageous. There have been few guarantees that there will be protection for our communities from opencast mining. Opencast mining can be as much of a blight on our communities as ever were pits and spoil from deep-mined coal, and not just immediately but for a considerable period afterwards.
When he winds up, will the Minister be able to assure us that no approval will be given to the Government's mineral planning guidance as set out in MPG3 until the House has debated it after the present consultation period, and until there is cross-party assent in both Houses to a regime that will protect our green and pleasant land in Scotland, England and Wales from the ravages of opencast mining, and that will not allow exploitative applications? As the hon. Member for Elmet said, such applications are often approved only because local considerations are not allowed to apply, and the national interest, whatever it may be, is said to be overriding. That has been a blight on many of our communities. It is unacceptable, and needs to be changed. I hope that the Government will give specific guarantees.
By the Government's own definition, the Bill has been long delayed. The danger is that there will now be a quick sell-off of the small part of the industry that is left. It is rather as if the Government, having stood by while the industry was run down, are now washing their hands of it as they try to sell it off. There is a suspicion that that was the intentional plan all the time, and that the Government knew that they would not be able to sell the coal industry until it had been run down, so, willingly and knowingly, they acted as accomplices in that process. That is a tragedy, because it need not have happened.
The new general secretary of the TUC has said:
History will charge this Government with the murder of the British coal mining industry. Now, in the ultimate insult, they are seeking to sell off the dismembered body".

It is odd that the "ultimate privatisation" is perceived by the great British public to be the "ultimate insult" to that great industry of ours. The Government are trying to walk quickly away from responsibility ; they say that the marketplace can provide, but they have the responsibility for a national energy policy. For 14 years we have never seen it; for 14 years we have paid the price, and all that we can do with the Bill now is to hope that the House and another place will make the best of a thoroughly bad job.

Mr. Winston Churchill: I strongly agree with the part of the speech by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that echoed the earlier contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), about the protection that needs to be provided and assured, in the Bill and in related legislation, in connection with opencast applications, especially in the countryside and in areas of outstanding natural beauty. It would be entirely unacceptable for the Government to be a party to closing down a large slice of such a major industry as the deep-mined coalfields of this country, only to spawn a mass of opencast workings on the surface. That is the last thing we need.
I warmly welcome the decision to privatise the coal industry. I believe it to be axiomatic that anything that the state can run, private industry could run better, more efficiently and more cheaply. However, I am bound to say that I regret the fact that once again we have too little, too late.
Privatisation should have been carried out sooner. Indeed, the President of the Board of Trade almost conceded as much in his opening speech. Certainly it should have been carried out before the industry was decimated in the wake of electricity privatisation. Now, there is little left to privatise; two thirds of the pits have gone since we first debated the subject at the beginning of this Parliament 15 or 16 months ago. Three quarters of the jobs in the industry have gone in that time, or are on the point of disappearing—30,000 jobs all told. I count that an unnecessary tragedy.
I trust that the Government will be successful in finding buyers for the residue of the industry. Above all, I hope that they can find buyers intent on operating the mines on a long-term basis, who are prepared to invest in them. We do not need the industry to be delivered in to the hands of the rape and pillage merchants, who will take out as much coal as is readily accessible but will make no investment in the future of the industry or of its work force.
The Government's determination to saddle new prospective owners with the responsibilty for past liabilities in respect of subsidence and of the health of the work force—no doubt one sees the hand of the Treasury there—appears to be a major disincentive, set against the relatively limited likely profits. On the face of it, it would appear unreasonable for the Government to seek to pass on to the new owners the responsibility for past damage done to the health of miners employed for many years, perhaps two decades or more, by British Coal. I should be grateful if the Minister for Energy, when he winds up, would deal with that matter.
For example, to take an extreme case, what would happen if, after a single year of working in the private sector, a miner or group of miners, having previously worked for 20 years for British Coal, developed


pneumoconiosis? Under the terms of the Bill, the new owner would have to bear the entire cost of compensating that individual, although the damage would almost certainly have been caused while the miner or miners concerned worked for British Coal, when, in earlier years, there was no provision for effective dust sampling, and it was not the norm for masks to be worn.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the industry is to be privatised, the way forward on pneumoconiosis is for the Government to accept the no-fault liability scheme currently run by the industry, and to carry it over to the private sector?

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman almost takes the words out of my mouth. I was about to ask my hon. Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues whether they realised that such unquantified and unquantifiable liabilities are likely to act as a supreme disincentive.
Furthermore, to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), what would happen to such a miner if his new employer went into liquidation? That is quite possible, given the present turmoil in the coal market in this country, and the fact that not a tonne is now being purchased—indeed, I am not aware that any of the £500 million subsidy supposedly on offer from the Treasury has had to be ponied up so far. What protection would there then be for the miner with pneumoconiosis or any other industrial disease? That is clearly something that must be properly addressed.
I know that it is the view of my hon. Friend's Department that pneumoconiosis is no longer a significant problem in terms of the numbers of new cases that are appearing, and that therefore the cost burden will not be great. In those circumstances, would it not be more appropriate for the Coal Authority to shoulder responsibility for that serious, long-term industrial disease?
If those unquantifiable liabilities were removed, not only would that make the remaining mines more saleable, but it would be the miner's guarantee that his compensation would be assured in the event that he developed that much-feared industrial disease, which bears comparison only—

Mr. Jack Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Davyhulme, but I was also under the impression that it was a convention of the House that one did not read newspapers during a debate. I see that one hon. Member is doing so.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Let me rule on one point of order before I take another. I had not noticed that any hon. Member had been reading a newspaper. If that was the case, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to do so.

Mr. Moss: I am happy to clear up the situation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was reading an article about the Drax clear-up, which is relevant to the debate.

Mr. Churchill: Not only would the removal of those unquantifiable liabilities make the mines more saleable, but it would be the miner's guarantee that his

compensation would be assured if he were to develop pneumoconiosis. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends if they will look at that question again.
The most striking difference between the sale of British Coal's core mines and the sale of steam coal properties in the world's biggest free coal market, the United States, is the shortness of the coal contracts with the power stations available in the country to potential new operators. The one certainly dominating the scene is that only three years of contracts remain with the generators. Beyond that, there is only uncertainty. Even the generators believe that, of all the coal-fired stations, only Drax is likely to be on base-load operation by the turn of the century.
Of course, it is too late to extract longer contracts from the generators, but, even now, there are two things that the Government could do to encourage would-be purchasers of the remaining mines. First, they could insist on the completion of flue gas desulphurisation at Ferrybridge—a bargain made at the time of electricity privatisation with the industry and referred to many times by the noble Lord Wakeham. The industry should be held to that. Secondly, and even more importantly, the Government should require redundant coal-fired stations to be made available at reasonable prices to other operators, including the principal coal producers.
We know that the regulator is concerned to see redundant stations offered to other users. However, he does not believe that he has the powers to require it. It is clear that National Power bases its asking price on the loss of sales value for its best stations. That would have the effect of pricing, for example, a 1,000 MW station—even one that is 35 years old and without gas cleaning—at over £300 million, which would be indefensible in terms of investment by a future private operator.
That is in stark contrast to the sales on the real market. Recently, it was reported that PowerGen sold three stations to China for a mere £20 million.

Mr. O'Neill: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, and I have some sympathy with it. Perhaps he might consider as a possible conclusion that the generators should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The only difficulty with that conclusion is that it would interrupt the Government's proposals to sell off the remaining tranche of shares of the two generators and would prejudice the sums that may be involved. If one has an abuse of monopoly power, it is logical to refer it to the MMC.

Mr. Churchill: I could not agree more. It is a matter of great regret that we in Britain appear to have a significantly less powerful regime against monopolies and the abuse of monopoly power than, for instance, the United States, which clearly acts to the detriment of consumers. The Government need to address that as a matter of urgency.
If the two generators were required to offer all the redundant coal plant at reasonable prices, it would boost the sales prospects of the remaining mines, provide the best guarantee that those who earn their living in the industry have the prospect of long-term employment, while at the same time providing consumers with much-needed competition in what is at present an over-restricted and an over-controlled market.
It is vital that the Government do not allow what is left of that once great industry to be blighted by an unwillingness on their part to address the abuses and


distortions that have arisen in the wake of electricity privatisation. While welcoming the Bill, I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to fine-tune it during its passage through the House to ensure the success of privatisation and to offer the industry and those who work in it a clear and prosperous future in the private sector.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the House of Madam Speaker's ruling earlier today that speeches between the hours of 6 pm and 8 pm will be limited to 10 minutes. We are now in that period.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) clearly does not have the same enthusiastic view of public ownership as his revered grandfather. Apart from that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join those of us who hope to serve on the Standing Committee, in which, perhaps with the assistance of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), we shall be able to fine-tune some aspects of the Bill, not least with regard to the latter points of his speech and the question of opencast mining, which cause some of us who live in the coalfields considerable anxiety.
On one side, we shall have the sites of destroyed pits, and on the other the devastation of a long period of opencasting, which no one in the local communities wanted. I hope that the consultation over the arrangements for opencast mines will not diminish the influence of local communities and their local authorities so that distant people can help rape what is left of our heritage.
It is a long time since nationalisation. It is appropriate to tell the House that, on vesting day in 1947, when I was a schoolboy, I went with my father and stood at the celebration of this decision by the greatest of post-war Governments. It was an interesting experience for a boy, because it was quiet, it was dignified and it was decent. There were some Tories there, but they were probably on the platform with one or two local dignitaries. I remember that because of the quiet satisfaction and decency of the occasion.
The other day, I stopped my car just to the north of the former pithead baths at Manvers colliery, exactly where I had stood with my father, and thought about what had happened since then. We have had 33 years of Conservative administration, and we, after being in office for only a minor part of the period that has elapsed since then, bear all the blame.
I know what the men were satisfied about and what they were celebrating. Each and every one of them would have known somebody or had relatives or neighbours who had been killed in the pit. Each of them would have known men who had been maimed. Each and every one of them would have known the short-cuts that had operated in the previous arrangements. They had seen waste and lost opportunities —so much so that, during the war, they had to have "Bevin boys" to make up for the inadequate provisions of the 1920s and 1930s.
The mine was taken into public ownership with good will. It was a very important decision. In the 1970s, the Labour Government—the hon. Member for Davyhulme took part in some of the debates, as I did—produced their

"Plan for Coal". The Conservative party in opposition enthusiastically supported it, and, until recent years, boasted about it.
We then saw the Conservative Government turning their backs, saying what a pity it was that the miners had not improved productivity earlier. In fact, productivity has been improving at a rate of knots in the past six or seven years. I heard Lord Haslam castigate the Secretary of State only a few months ago for not understanding that fact.
We have many problems, but, with a 10-minute limit on speeches, I cannot refer to all 'of them, but I hope that I serve on the Committee and that Opposition Members will find time, without attempting to prolong the proceedings improperly or unreasonably, to consider matters such as the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation and concessionary pensions. We have heard little about the rake-off that the Government proposed to take from the surplus. I hope that we are also able to consider environmental responsibilities and health and safety matters.
Unfortunately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are unable to speak in the House. From your experience of the mining industry, you must be deeply concerned about the paraplegic centre in Pontefract and the future of other such establishments. I hope that the Minister will assure us that there will be proper provision for such establishments.
Subsidence has been referred to. We will have to explore that and many other issues in depth, but I wish to discuss safety.
The other day, a learned judge—the Minister for Energy knows which case I am referring to—perceived
a mining industry which, in future, may see privatisation and, thus, an end to much of the regulation that British Coal has put in place.
We have been told that it dismantled much of the safety structure, and the President of the Board of Trade boasted about that this afternoon. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not have done anything to injure safety, except to do what has already been done, and that is to replace what existed before with all sorts of provisions, and then provide the let-out clause that appears on virtually every page of the regulations, stating that there will be priority for safety "in so far as it is practicable".
One thousand men a year were killed in the British mining industry before nationalisation. One thousand men a year was the average in the 1920s, 1930s and early 1940s. As has been demonstrated, the average has been brought down to a tiny proportion, and it is at risk. There will be corner-cutting and short-sighted calculations. If not, the Secretary of State would have given a little more time to consider the disposal of the industry to one company which would have had the capacity to operate with scale, which would not have had to look over its shoulder at competitors operating on the lowest common denominator principle in safety and investment, and which would have been able to take a forward look.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) might think that all the Selby pits will be saved, but I doubt whether that will be the case.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hardy: No. I do not have time to give way.
I have one colliery left—Silverwood. It is a proud pit, with a superb record. My hon. Friends know that Silverwood has been one of the most successful collieries


during the post-war period. It has made enormous profits. Only a little while ago, I spoke in the House about the proud achievements of that colliery when it had broken another record. A few months ago, I heard of investment at the pit, but subsequently learned that a development on which much money has been spent was stopped about three weeks before it started to yield.
That is the colliery to which British Coal used to send distinguished visitors. In Jubilee year, the Queen visited Silverwood colliery. A picture of the Queen at that pit was displayed in every colliery in Britain. Men from that pit have often featured in the honours list—one as recently as three weeks ago. They have been treated scurvily.
We now hear that the pit will not be closed abruptly, but will be whittled away, and that some men might be transferred to Maltby. The only problem is that people in Maltby tell me that they have been assured that Maltby's requirements do not need to be met by Silverwood men. What a way to treat people who have made such an enormous contribution. If they are treated like that by British Coal, how on earth will they be treated by private operators?
I again ask the Minister a question. I have asked four Ministers of the Crown this question, and I have not had a satisfactory answer. If the Minister is concerned about safety, will he guarantee that no overseas coal owner will be allowed to buy British mines if his record is as bad as some Opposition Members suspect some are? If coal owners abroad have unsatisfactory safety records, we do not want them here, because we value the lives and limbs of our constituents.
It is no good the Minister saying that that is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive, because the Health and Safety Executive does not decide who will buy the British coal industry. That is a ministerial responsibility, and the executive should not exercise it.
I should like to say much more about Silverwood. I find it far too distressing even to contemplate that men with such a proud record and splendid achievement should be treated as British Coal has treated them. The one thing that I regret about the leadership of British Coal is that they seem to have forgotten that they have been paid to lead their industry on behalf of the nation.
I suspect that, in recent years, they have largely led the industry in the direction in which they want it to go for their personal reasons, overlooking the fact that their position has been—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I call Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy on bringing the Bill to the House. It has been a long time in coming, but it is better late than never.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) took us back in history to vesting day in 1947, when the nationalisation of the coal industry came into effect. Although the hon. Gentleman described that day very eloquently, sadly, when we look back at the era of nationalisation from a perspective of history, we see it as nothing more than an unremitting disaster.
A once great industry was reduced to a rump by years of protectionism and, I have to say, Government interference. This Government's bold decision—it was a bold decision—to liberalise the energy market in this country showed just how featherbedded, feeble and incompetent British Coal and the British coal industry had become. The result was an unpleasant reality with which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had to deal, taking much flak in the process.
In 1947, when the hon. Member for Wentworth stood outside the gates of the colliery, Britain was the leading nation in mining technology. It was exporting tonnes of coal all around the world. Welsh steam coal probably fired nearly every locomotive in the world. We were world leaders. There were dozens of successful and profitable collieries in the north-east of England at the time.
For example, pits in my home county of Northumberland—as the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) knows, there were many pits in my home county—made a profit at that time. Private coal owners would not have kept the pits open if they had not made a profit.
I rember that Shilbottle colliery used to supply all the coal to Buckingham palace, because it was considered to be the finest household coal in the United Kingdom. Shilbottle coal was requested by the late King. The Queen burns house coal in many of her grates. Many people will now have to burn Polish coal, because British coal cannot provide house coal for our market.
Time and time again, we hear about the effectiveness of the United States system of pillar and stall mining. That method has been recommended to the Coal Board and many private operators as a way to mine coal economically. The technique was invented in the north-east of England. Originally, it was used in the Ellington and Wearmouth collieries. Wearmouth colliery is under threat at present. We will have to bring mining engineers from the United States in order to re-learn the skill of pillar and stall mining.
I am worried that those people who ran the National Coal Board and subsequently British Coal are now, through their plans for colliery closures, helping to shape the future of the privatised industry. It is totally wrong that a group of British Coal managers, who have an eye on future management buy-outs, should be shaping the industry in the way they see fit, while private companies are being frustrated in their efforts to take over pits which British Coal has closed and which are not wanted but which the private sector believes could have a good future.
I shall give an example. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) is not in his seat, because Wearmouth colliery is a classic example. A private company wants to buy that pit and re-employ some of the 650 men who lost their jobs. Wearmouth colliery is ideal, because there is plenty of good-quality coal which can be transported straight from the pithead to ore-carrying ships and exported.
To sell on the world market, coal must be priced at about £15 a tonne—that is before shipping costs of £5 or £7 a tonne are added. A pit near the coast with easily mined coal is highly competitive. Private coal companies that are interested in Wearmouth realise that they will be able to achieve the target of £15 a tonne and export coal to overseas markets from that colliery.

Mr. Jack Thompson: The hon. Gentleman's constituency is next to mine. Is he aware that Wearmouth colliery could achieve that target whether it is privatised or nationalised? It was able to achieve the target before it was closed, but it was still closed by British Coal, as part of the Government and British Coal exercise of "slimming down the industry", as it has been described.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. The figures are only averages, because they vary from pit to pit. Even after making enormous steps forward in productivity, collieries have a long way to go to get down to the level of £15 a tonne. However, they can and will do so under private management. If British Coal had been able to do it years ago, it would have done so, but the management and protection of the business have always prevented it. It will be left to the private sector to achieve that possibility.
It is worth noting that, in the United States, deep-mined coal from mines exactly like Ellington colliery in Northumberland and Wearmouth colliery in Tyne and Wear can land coal on the surface for £7 a tonne in West Virginia. Such a target is ultimately achievable in British deep-mining collieries. [Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh about that, but if we can achieve that level of productivity in our mines, British Coal will have a future of bringing on new customers in the industrial sector as well as exporting coal around the world, especially to Germany, which spends about ten times that amount on mining one tonne of coal.
It is no wonder that British Coal managers do not want Wearmouth colliery to fall into competitors' hands. Despite making the pit available for leasing, they are making it almost impossible for a private company to take over the colliery.
There are two faces at Wearmouth. One of them is brand new—it has been under development for several months. New coal-cutting machinery imported from America was already at the face. That machinery has been removed and taken to Longannet colliery in Scotland, where puzzled managers have been told to use it come what may.
At the same time, expensive roof supports have been removed from the new face and replaced with temporary supports. The supports have been taken to Ellington colliery, where they are simply lying on the surface. Next week at Wearmouth, work will start on pulling the coal-cutting equipment from the existing face, and more roof supports will be removed.
Why is British Coal doing that? One thing that British Coal cannot be short of in this day and age is coal-cutting machinery, because it has been removed from several pits recently. Surely British Coal cannot be short of roof supports for the same reason. The reason is obvious: British Coal managers, who are looking towards a management buy-out, consider that Wearmouth colliery is a danger. Therefore, they will seek to frustrate a private company which wants to take it over, as they frustrated another company which wanted to take over Bevercotes colliery in Newark.
Hon. Members will watch carefully the way in which the Coal Board deals with the pits between now and the time that the Bill becomes law. The Coal Board retains a much greater responsibility than simply worrying about the management buy-outs which individual managers may be considering. It has a statutory responsibility to the mining

industry as a whole. Once the Bill becomes law, it will then be held accountable for what it has done in the months leading up to privatisation.
I welcome this privatisation. Whatever the mockers on the other side of the House may say about it, it will give the British coal industry an opportunity to live once again, to compete in the world, to attract new customers, and to move to being one of the leading coal-producing nations once again.

Mr. John Evans: I listened with some anger to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) refer to the glories of mining of Tyneside and in north-east England in the days when it was privatised. I merely tell him that my father worked at the Rising Sun colliery at Wallsend. When he was 32 years of age, he drowned in a mining accident for which my mother received no compensation. My mother and three small children aged under six were left in abject poverty. My memories of the privately owned mining industry leave me with no pleasure whatever.
It is with some pleasure that I preface my speech by referring to early-day motion 359 entitled "Women Against Pit Closures Camp at Parkside Colliery". Unlike the Government, those brave women believe passionately in their menfolk and their pit. Tonight, they are holding a party to celebrate the first anniversary of their camp. It was an incredible achievement and experience for those women, who often suffered from foul weather. Severe gales, deep frosts and downpours of rain have often been their lot. Frankly, I do not believe that a group of men could have stuck it out for 24 hours a day for a whole year in the same way as those women. The women have made it clear that they will stay at Parkside colliery until it is reopened and producing coal. I salute them, and I am delighted to wish them a very happy birthday.
When I was elected to the House in February 1974, there were over 250,000 miners in this country working in more than 100 pits. There were innumerable collieries dotted all over north-west England. Today, there are 22 pits and about 20,000 miners—none in north-west England. Parkside, which was the last colliery in the Lancashire coalfield, closed one year ago. Since I was elected, a quarter of a million miners have been sacked and almost 100 mines have closed.
Two hundred thousand jobs have disappeared since the Tories were elected in 1979. The contraction of the industry is continuing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, it has been leaked that half a dozen collieries will close during the next few weeks. By the time the Bill reaches the statute book—if it reaches the statute book—we will be down to the 12 to 14 pits which were identified by the Rothschild report as ripe for privatisation.
Ministers of course are washing their hands, and claiming that the rundown of the industry is a result of market forces and that there is no point in digging coal if there is no one willing to buy it. It has been demonstrated many times in the House that that simply is not true. The market has been rigged against coal, and the main features of that rigged market are well known and have been well aired—the dash for gas, the nuclear power levy of a billion


pounds-plus, the protected market share of the nuclear power industry and the continuing nonsense of the French interconnector.
There are questions of a possible conflict of interest for the senior management of British Coal, and whether they end up with an agreed market with some profitable collieries which they will look to purchase. Clause 1 of the Bill will establish the Coal Authority, which I have no doubt will be another quango stuffed with Tory grandees, including probably some from the other place.
The Bill instructs the authority to sell all surplus land. British Coal owns 250,000 acres of land throughout Great Britain, some of which I suspect may be valuable. I suspect that the Treasury will be looking for substantial returns from the sale of much of that land. I also believe that a number of proposed sales of land from British Coal to individuals have been stalled for a couple of years prior to privatisation.
A substantial amount of land is owned by British Coal in my constituency, particularly at Haydock. A number of small businesses have leased properties on the site of the old colliery workshop at Haydock. Many of those properties are in a poor condition, and British Coal has always refused to maintain them. One of the small businessmen at Haydock has tried for months to buy the freehold of the property that he is leasing to improve his factory, its output and the conditions of his workforce. However, it has been impossible for him to reach any agreement with British Coal.
wrote to the Minister for Energy last year about the situation. While he sympathised with me, as he often does, he went on to say in his letter of 31 August 1993:
However, as I am sure you will appreciate, decisions on the appropriate disposal of individual sites are entirely a matter for British Coal.
When the authority is set up, I suspect that it will no longer be a matter for British Coal but for the Treasury. Certainly, I expect that the Treasury will be interested in the outcome of the sale of that land.
I want to turn to the issue of opencast mining. The north-west in general, and my constituency in particular, has lost deep mining, and people are greatly concerned about the opencast mining aspect of the Bill. Presumably British Coal's land bank is to be sold off to the highest bidder. Those who purchase the land will expect to be able to mine it, irrespective of the views of the local people who will be affected, because opencast mining is a highly profitable exercise.
In my constituency—particularly at Billinge and Garswood—there has been a number of applications for opencast mining during the past few years. That opencast mining would have gone literally to the precincts of those villages, and it would have had a dreadful impact on the lives of the people of those two communities. The villagers have resisted the propositions ferociously and the council has always backed them. I trust sincerely that that will continue in the future.
If an application were received for opencast mining in the St. Helens and Wigan area, the response of the people of those communities would be that if the nation requires coal, the place to get it is Parkside colliery. The colliery has millions of tonnes of coal lying there and millions of pounds' worth of valuable machinery with which coal can

be extracted. An argument which is unacceptable to the people in my area is that the country requires the coal. If the country requires it, the place to go is Parkside.
Another issue to which I would like to refer briefly—because time is running out—is the issue of subsidence. Many hon. Members are concerned about the impact of subsidence on areas where mining will continue. My concern is about the areas where coal mining will no longer be going on. What happens to those areas?
Hon. Members who have dealt with British Coal over the years would be only too willing to say that they have not always had an easy ride. Often, it has been difficult to get British Coal to agree adequately to compensate individuals concerned. We must now deal with the Coal Authority. In the past, we have dealt with a north-west area board but I suspect that we will now have to deal with the coal authority in London. I suggest to the Minister that the north-west is entitled to an area office so that subsidence claims may be dealt with locally.
This is a bad Bill. I sincerely trust that, if it is not rejected tonight, major amendments will be imposed on Report.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I start by apologising to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for my absence during the opening speeches. As they are probably aware, I was leading a deputation of people involved in the textile industry in West Yorkshire to the Department of Trade and Industry. As the discussions there took longer than was expected, I decided not to return to the House.
My interest in manufacturing, and particularly in the coal industry, is well known in the House. My more recent interests in the coal industry are listed in the Register of Members' Interests.
In my view, coal has a positive future. It will move back to the centre of the British energy supply industry in the long term if it is part of a well-thought energy policy. The Government must have such a policy to regain the country's confidence and they must support the remains of an important industry by retaining its ability to use the massive coal reserves. Within that policy, a free and competitive market will, with other forms of energy, ensure that there is a viable British coal industry.
Coal will be able to compete in terms of quality, price and service. However, at present the British coal industry is heading towards a crossroads. If the wrong turning is taken, the industry will disappear into the realms of industrial archaeology. With successful privatisation—I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I support the privatisation aspects of the Bill—and restructuring, the industry will rejuvenate and grow. To achieve that, the industry must be imaginative and take note of past mistakes.
For centuries, coal has been the main energy source for Britain. Much of our industry today was founded on coal during the industrial revolution. The city of London was rebuilt after the great fire, and St. Paul's cathedral would not exist today but for a levy on all the coal which was consumed at that time in London. Yet despite massive reserves under Britain, we are running down our indigenous production and turning to gas, which everyone accepts has a limited life. That is contrary to all


international trends. World production levels have risen from below 2,800 million metric tonnes in 1980 to more than 3,500 million metric tonnes in 1992.
For more than a century, the industry has been the source of intense political, social and commercial controversy, often to its severe detriment. In the 1930s, the industry needed restructuring because there were too many pits, there was no investment and productivity was poor. Politicians from all sides of the political spectrum then began to consider nationalisation as a solution.
At that time, Harold Macmillan supported that route in his "Middle Way" publication, proposing
an industrial structure with broad strategic control in the hands of the store and the tactical operation in the hands of private management".
That was an admirable strategy but we have never perfected it.
I have always believed that the state has a part to play in the energy market, which is currently rigged against coal. The announcement of the White Paper last year gave the Government an opportunity to resolve some of that rigging, but no such action was taken.
Nationalisation in 1947 brought about the required reshaping and reinvestment. In the 1950s and 1960s, the National Coal Board, led by men of vision, Lord Ezra and Lord Robens, perhaps with the help of the combative union co-operation of Lord Joe Gormley, made great strides to increase production and, more importantly, improve safety. We have heard quite a bit about safety this evening.
However, nothing stands still. The advent of cheap oil from newly discovered reserves, the development of nuclear energy to produce electricity, and the availability of vast supplies of natural gas revolutionised the energy market. We are still suffering the consequences—some of my hon. Friends will say that we are still enjoying the benefits.
State-run organisations have been shown to be almost incapable of redirecting and restructuring themselves. That was certainly true of the British coal industry. By the 1990s, even with the intervening industrial relations dramas of 1974 and 1984, the industry's structure was unsuited to the marketplace. Overheads were too high, there was too much bureaucracy and poor productivity, production costs were comparatively high, demand was falling and the market share had been reduced. It was a typical demise of a demand-driven rather than market-led industry.
Albeit with hindsight, I believe that the coal industry, with its diverse structure, difficulties in production and social importance to hundreds of communities around the country, should have been privatised before gas and electricity.
The Government's review of their pit closure programme, resulting from my right hon. Friend's devastating announcement in October 1992, has not saved many of the pits that were threatened with closure. However, there is an outside chance that new operators may wish to reopen some of the redundant pits if, when they are ready to be licensed, any of the machinery for extraction from those mines is left and if the bottom of the mines are not flooded.
By 1995, we shall be down to a small number of pits, despite massive increases in output per man from 504 tonnes in 1982–83 to 1,611 tonnes in 1992. I appreciate the fact that, with a falling market and increasing productivity, that has been one of the problems. Because the miners did

everything that we asked them from the 1980s onwards, they have, ultimately, been their own worst enemy. But the cost of production is falling and the industry is becoming more competitive. We must ensure that our coal is competitive with imports because we have an ideal situation for substantial import substitution.
We have four basic markets for solid fuel: electricity generation; coking coal for the steel industry; and the domestic and industrial sectors. Obviously, generating demands have fallen because of competition from gas.
The steel industry still consumes 7 million to 8 million tonnes of coking coal a year and the domestic sector uses more than 5 million tonnes of solid fuel a year in nearly 3 million homes. If the Queen wants sensible coal in Buckingham palace, it can be supplied by British industry and our coal merchants, who are good at supplying what their customers demand.
By the end of this year, the market for coal is likely to be some 60 million tonnes. Imports now cover the shortfall of indigenous coal, with major imports coming from Poland, Colombia and South Africa where production costs are low. However, there is a market out there and the demand for coal exists. It is ironic that British Coal, while saying that there was no market for coal, doubled the imports for domestic and industrial coal and, the following week, closed down the very mines that could have supplied that coal. We should look at that carefully.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Members about opencast mining. It adds insult to injury to close pits in Yorkshire and then allow planning applications for the small amount of green field that is left. There will be huge opposition to any such proposals. Planning applications should be granted for derelict land but not for green field sites.
There is never enough time to say everything that one wishes to say in 10 minutes. But all is not lost for the coal industry. Costs are falling and coal is becoming more competitive in the marketplace. Private companies already want to license mines because they know that there is a market, whereas British Coal said that there was none. It is interesting to note that managers of British Coal now feel that they may wish to put in bids for the very coal market which they said did not exist. That suggests that there may be a market in the future.
Some 3,000 merchants sell coal products in this country and they engage in commercial activity through the Solid Fuel Association, selling the "real fire" image. Although many people like to see a real fire in the local pub and elsewhere, not all of us have the time to clean the grates every morning. However, we should try to ensure that coal consumers can consume British coal, mined in British mines by British people, rather than imported coal that is not always of the same quality.
Although I support the privatisation of the coal industry, because the industry has no future if it is left in the hands of British Coal, issues within the Bill will need to be discussed and considered carefully. One of those issues is CISWO—the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation —which has a role to play. Another is pensions—

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Michael Clapham.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Privatisation of the industry makes no sense whatever, except in so far as it represents the


Government's hostility to the deep coal mining industry in the United Kingdom, the mining unions and mining communities.
The real issues concerns not ownership as such, but markets. The Government have failed to deal with that point. It is evident from the way in which the energy market was privatised in 1990 that the architects of that privatisation, Lord Parkinson and Lord Wakeham, rigged the market against the coal industry to cause its demise. Privatisation is the final part of that agenda.
The format for privatisation has not come about simply in the past couple of months. The Rothschild report has been in the public domain for the past four years. It suggested that the deep mined coal industry could be viable with 10 to 14 pits, which is the agenda towards which the Government have been working. Following the report, the industry was rapidly run down. In 1990 there were 73 collieries and 65,400 men. Within two years, that number was down to 50 collieries and just 42,000 men.
The White Paper, "Prospects for Coal", and the administration package are part of the agenda. The President of the Board of Trade gave the impression to the House when presenting his paper that he would save 12 of the 31 collieries earmarked for closure. The House should be aware that, of the 31 collieries, only four are now in operation. Of the 12 that were to be reprieved, only four are producing coal, and on 23 December The Independent reported that British Coal was considering closing the last four of those 12 collieries early in the new year. The work force has been cut dramatically since October 1992. By December 1993 it had been reduced from 42,000 to 14,700 men. If the other collieries are closed, that will add a further 3,000 to the 27,000 already lost.
The ripple has gone well beyond traditional mining Communities. For example, giving evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, Mr. Andrew Glyn, an economist from Corpus Christi college Oxford, said that the knock-on effect of 23,300 redundancies in the industry would be a total of 78,900 jobs. That estimate was supported by Yamaichi, which estimated in evidence to the Select Committee that, for every job lost in the industry, three were lost elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is not in his place, spoke of world prices and the competitiveness of British coal. He and the House should be aware that world prices do not result from the interaction of the normal forces of supply and demand. Price follows the lowest common denominator, which at present tends to be South African coal which is cheap because it is produced involuntarily by cheap labour. All the other producers tend to follow that price.
Columbia uses child labour. On Wednesday I was privy to a screening arranged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) of a BBC documentary which showed clearly that child labour is used in Colombian mines. It showed children under the age of 10 working in the most awful conditions. When the Minister replies to the debate he should make it plain that Britain will not import coal from countries that use child labour.
Some United Kingdom mines have been producing coal at below world market prices. In September, Bentley colliery was producing coal at 88p per gigajoule, but that colliery has been closed. Similarly Silverdale colliery,

which was in deficit at the beginning of the year, turned the loss into a profit by September, the beginning of the second half of the financial year. Like the miners at Bentley colliery, however, those at Silverdale were treated to a colliery closure.
If it was used properly, the modified colliery review procedure would scrutinise some of those facts, but will that procedure continue? Will the current procedures for monitoring a colliery's performance be continued if the Bill becomes law and the industry has a private sector? Would the Minister be prepared to add a consultation clause to the Bill so that current consultation procedures will continue in the private sector?
The 27 collieries that have already closed have resulted in the sterilisation of 500 million tonnes of coal. That extremely valuable resource could be lost for ever, at massive cost to future generations. Britain has half western Europe's coal reserves—enough for 230 years at current extraction rates. Will the Minister ensure that no colliery is permanently closed, but that all are placed on a care and maintenance basis until he has at least had an opportunity to explore with the European Community whether funds can be made available to pay for keeping the pits on that basis so that, should the need arise, the pits can be reopened quickly?
The Bill contains no provision for continuing Government investment in research and development. In other nations the industry enjoys significant state support. The Australian coal industry gets a 150 per cent. tax rebate for all research and development, and last year the Federal Government of the United States spent $700 million on research and development. The Dutch electricity generating board has just opened a £600 million clean coal project, and is talking in terms of opening perhaps another six projects using such technology to generate electricity for about the next 20 years. Will investment in research and technology, and especially in clean coal technology, continue?
It has been said that privatisation is likely to lead to a bigger industry. I think that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) genuinely believes that under private ownership the industry will become larger. How could that be when companies will be operating a handful of pits which will be vulnerable to failure, particularly that caused by bad geology? Of course, when cost targets are not reached, collieries will close.
Secondly, privatisation will be accompanied by a rundown in research and development, and that by the coal research establishment will no longer be carried out. Therefore, developments that would be good for coal are unlikely to be forthcoming.
Thirdly, we must bear in mind the volume of coal that will be sold to the electricity supply industry—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Mr. Alan Duncan: It is a rather happy coincidence that I should follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) because, as he well knows, I was the hapless young Conservative who contested that seat in the 1987 general election. I stood against the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Allen McKay, and when the results were announced on the night of the election I found that I had run him a distant second.
In the course of working in that area I got to know it very well and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's passion for the interests of miners and former miners in the constituency. Those passions are shared by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who made an impassioned speech earlier in the debate, and by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who is seated on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone will not impugn the motives of Conservative Members who welcome the Bill, because we greatly share the concerns that he so well expressed.
The Bill is long overdue and it is the only hope for securing the long-term interests of the coal industry which are so important to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, to mine and to those of his colleagues and mine.
It has been a wretched year for coal. The industry has faced closures which simply cannot fail to provoke the sympathies of every hon. Member. Productivity increases since the 1984 strike have been staggering, and every person in the industry deserves recognition for that success. However, the tragedy of the industry's decline must be recognised and we must try to contend with it in as practical a way as we can. The decline in volume has been going on for ages—for decades. It has been inevitable, and it is our duty to face the realities of that decline.
Labour Members would argue forcefully that that inevitability has been exacerbated by what they would describe as a rigged market. I do not share that view. Competitive purchasing by competing generators is not a rigged market. What lies behind the charge that the market is rigged is a request for the generators to pay an inflated price for coal which would otherwise be above world markets.
In the face of its historic decline, the Bill is designed to provide the best possible prospects for the future development and success of the coal industry. Conservative Members will agree that nationalisation is not and never has been the solution. Any study of all the nationalised industries since the war suggests that it is simply not the answer. In 1979, 10·5 per cent. of our entire gross domestic product was in the hands of nationalised industries. About one seventh of all fixed investment was poured into nationalised industries. Nationalised industry employed 2 million people, but it was going backwards and costing the Treasury billions of pounds.
One of the arguments in favour of nationalisation was that certain commercial concerns simply could not survive in the private sector and required to remain in the public sector, but if the last 14 years have proved anything, they have surely proved the fallacy of that view. All privatised industries have fared better than when they were in the public sector. Privatisation is not the product of blind ideology. It is indeed the product of our conviction that any industry will perform better in private hands, but it is also the product of clear evidence that that conviction is borne out by experience.
Other heavy industries have been privatised. We can cite examples of oil, gas and steel. They are all massive, heavy industries; they require high investment and heavy infrastructure and they have to survive in vicious global markets. We started by selling BP shares in 1979. It is a perfect example of the success of privatisation. The oil industry, in which I have worked, does not need to be nationalised. Shell, BP and other massive private concerns

find oil, ship it, refine it, distribute it and finance it, all without help. British Gas does the same; it is a triumph of United Kingdom industry.
British Steel was once a white elephant costing the Treasury hundreds of millions of pounds. It is now the fourth largest company in the western world, producing 78 per cent. of all the crude steel in the United Kingdom. It has a turnover of £5 billion pounds and a couple of years ago made profits of £500 million pounds. Those examples should convince us that, in as much as there are serious long-term prospects for the coal industry in the United Kingdom, those prospects are best served by placing the
If it were just a matter of productivity, I would begin to see some of the reasons for which the Opposition have argued today for the continued public ownership of the coal industry. The productivity increases have been fantastic—almost unbelievable—but the principles which lie behind the Bill involve far more than productivity. The ownership of the industry, which the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said was unimportant, is critical to the energy and principles which lie behind the purposes of the Bill.
If we change the ownership and place the industry in private hands, as we did for British Gas and other industries before it, we will change the whole climate of initiative, which could pervade the entire ethos of the workplace and the management. It will free the industry to take a more global outlook. It will free it from all the stop and go, the generosity and parsimony of Government finance. It will free the industry from Government interference.
I fervently believe that this is not the place to discuss the exact economics of any business, industry or competing commercial concern. The House can never know as much about the detail of running an industry as the people who are trying to run it. We should free those people to run the industry in the best interests of its profits and its employees.
Let me dwell on safety. Are oil and gas any less safe because they are in private hands? The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone nods his head, but I defy him to quote an example. In my experience of the oil and gas industry, I simply do not accept that.
The Bill will offer the industry for sale in five regional businesses. The employees will have a stake in it and there are already interested parties. It will set up a coal authority which, I am pleased to say, will be based in Nottinghamshire near my constituency and it will involve proper consideration for subsidence, the environment, pensions and the future prospects of the industry.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the threat of opencast mining. They do not need to convince me of that. When the Duke of Rutland lay down in front of the bulldozers to stop opencast mining in the vale of Belvoir, he did the right thing. If he were to do the same thing again, I would be chained next to him to stop the bulldozers digging up the most beautiful part of my constituency.

Mr. Skinner: I will be driving it.

Mr. Duncan: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will be driving the bulldozer—we know what a careful driver he is.
Asfordby pit is in my constituency. I look forward to seeing it thrive and flourish. If oil and gas can survive and thrive in the private sector, so can coal. I welcome the Bill and look forward to supporting its Second Reading tonight.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: I was in Bilsthorpe the other week, where a miner's wife told me that she was fed up with living in the shadow of uncertainty and with the knowledge that the Bill cast a blight over her future. Unfortunately, she had been taken in by the promises in the White Paper "Prospects for Coal" in March, but now she knows the truth. She knows that six collieries in Nottinghamshire have closed since March—Silverhill, Cotgrave, Clipstone, Bevercotes, Rufford and Calverton. That is 4,769 jobs lost since last March.
The miner's wife wants to know what will happen next. People in Nottinghamshire are practical and pragmatic. They can take the bad news, but they cannot take no news at all.
The Energy Minister ought to come clean tonight and confirm whether the coal industry in Nottinghamshire has a future and whether the rumours that Bilsthorpe and Annersley Bentinck are about to close are true. He should confirm whether there are plans to merge 011erton with Thoresby and Welbeck with Manton.
When the review process begins in a few weeks' time when we move towards restructuring day, the woman in Bilsthorpe wants to know whether it is true that there will just be just three collieries left in Nottinghamshire, based on Welbeck, Thoresby and Harworth. She has a right to know, because her family, her community and her fathers before her have contributed to that industry.
She knows that, in 1980, there were 40,000 miners in Nottinghamshire, and that, if the closures go ahead, in a few months' time there will be only about 3,000 mining jobs in the county. In 14 years, nine out of every 10 mining jobs in Nottinghamshire will have gone. At the same time, Nottinghamshire miners, and miners throughout the country, have increased their productivity by up to 150 per cent. over the past five years. They are producing coal at half the cost of that in Germany. No other sector in British industry can match that record.
Is it any wonder that people in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country feel that promises made to them have been broken, and that they have been betrayed? Does not the Minister realise that people believe that the Government's plan is now to put the coffin lid on British Coal, hammer it down and bury it deep, and quickly?
Will the Minister say—he has been asked before—how many pits will remain on restructuring day, perhaps 1 January 1995, or will privatisation be on 1 April next year? Does he know? Will he say? Does he care? People in Nottinghamshire feel that the promises made last March and by Lady Thatcher's Government before that have been torn up. Perhaps he will tell us what his valuation of British Coal will be on privatisation. The value is clearly the remaining contract with the generators. Is it not true that that would give it a market price of perhaps £200 million? Perhaps he will confirm that.
Perhaps the Minister will talk about the substantial private sector interest that has been talked about in the Chamber tonight. Pits have closed unremittingly over the

past year. Let me remind the House that not one colliery has opened under private ownership. Promises have been made, leases were about to be signed, but the pit wheel has yet to turn and produce one lump of private coal.
They have had their opportunities. I wish Richard Budge well in his chances to reopen Clipstone colliery. Hon. Members may recall that it closed last March, and that the north Nottinghamshire training and enterprise council was given £2·7 million to redeploy and retrain the miners there, and find new jobs for them.
Is it not a condemnation of the Government's energy policy that, in December, that same TEC voted Richard Budge £200,000 to open the pit again. Is that not a waste of money? It cost £2·7 million to close it down, yet now, as it is seen in the area, a grant of £200,000 has been given to reopen it.
That smacks of sharp practice. People want to know why British Coal is presently repairing the pit at Clipstone. Why is it spending £100,000 on the shaft so that Richard Budge can open it up, perhaps in March? They want to know why he is not footing the bill himself. He will not do so, because he is going to make a profit out of the pit.
That is what it is about. Richard Budge will make that profit off the backs of the miners, because it is clear that one of the ways that he intends to make a profit is to drive wages down. The rumours are loud. The papers seem quite clear—he intends to pay new miners at Clipstone 20 to 30 per cent. less than they would get under British Coal.
While we are moving towards privatisation, perhaps the Minister can tell us how the Bill deals with coal stocks. There are currently 47 million tonnes of coal stocks on the ground. How will he handle that? How will British Coal and the generators handle that problem? In particular, how will the market handle it in the run up to privatisation?
What will he do if Professor Littlechild, the regulator for the electricity industry, decides to intervene and report the generators to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Does he not think that that will put a spoke in the wheel of privatisation? Is it not time that perhaps regulators stopped acting like Lone Rangers and became policemen, looking after the real interests of consumers?
There are a great many issues in the Bill. My hon. Friends have talked about some that we shall pursue in Committee—for example, pensions. Miners know that there is a surplus. They want a share of it. They feel that they have contributed, and that it should not be ripped off by the Government.
The subsidence provisions can only be described as a minefield. The notion of areas of influence that the new private owners will take on board seem to me to be a recipe for disaster, because people who suffer mining subsidence want to know who is responsible. They want to go to one door. They do not want to go to the private owner and then to the Coal Authority. There should be one port of call on that issue—the Coal Authority.
I congratulate my colleague, Dennis Walker, the vice-chairman of Boughton parish council, for his work on subsidence in the Ollerton area. He would say that, although he has difficulties and arguments with British Coal staff, at the end of the day he gets a fair reception.
What will happen to those British Coal staff after privatisation? Who will be the experts? What about British Coal's property? It is perhaps the biggest property owner in the country. What will happen to the profits made marketing Babbington colliery? Who will own Hucknall golf course? What will happen to all those assets? Who


will raise the quality of the environment and look after the reclaimed tip heaps? Who will look at mine water discharge, about which the Bill says nothing?
British Coal Enterprise is hardly mentioned. Nottinghamshire and areas throughout the country face real difficulty. Those areas need help, new investment, new jobs and a new future. That is why it is important that British Coal Enterprise has a future. In Nottinghamshire at the moment there are just 22 vacancies for young people, with 212 youngsters chasing every vacancy. It is their future we are talking about. We need proper regeneration, and a new future for them and for coalfield areas.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: The debate is essentially about the mechanism for the privatisation of the coal industry. The essential question is, does the Bill set out the most effective and efficient structure to effect the transfer from a state-owned monopoly to a privatised industry, to produce maximum benefits together with necessary controls and assurances?
The debate is not about the market for coal, the future of the deep-mined coal industry in this country, Government intervention in the energy market, or an overall energy policy, whatever that might mean. We have been through all that with the Select Committee report and the Government White Paper.
Opposition speakers are still putting yesterday's arguments. They are still going back over old ground. They are still fighting a rearguard action, on which many of their supporters cannot agree. On the one hand, the Labour party presses the Government to implement all the Select Committee's recommendations; on the other, it appears that Labour members of the Committee do not agree with all its recommendations, to which they signed up only last autumn.
The Labour party has repeatedly failed to secure a market for coal. The Labour Governments of 1964–70 and 1974–79 closed 313 pits—a loss of 205,700 jobs. More pits closed in those 11 years than in the 15 years of this Government. Not that they did not try to expand the market. Between 1974–77, they made a big commitment, but failed miserably. Output fell by 16 per cent., from 142 million tonnes to 119 million tonnes.
A former Labour Energy Minister accepts that Labour Governments misled themselves and the miners. The noble Lord Marsh said:
We genuinely believed that with a benevolent mixture of good intentions and massive subsidies we could reverse the market trend.
My Lords, we completely misled ourselves and them … Every time they were betrayed, not by individuals, not by Ministers, but by the realities of the situation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1992; Vol. 539, c. 692.]
Despite being repeatedly challenged, Labour still avoids the key questions. Today, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) avoided them again. Labour refuses to say how much money it is prepared to commit to continue subsidising British Coal, or in which of the independent commercial contracts between private companies it would interfere to secure additional coal sales.
What would be the cost in compensation? Does Labour realise that that would set a massive precedent that would send reverberations through British industry? How many jobs in other industries is Labour prepared to destroy—in

regional electricity companies; the two power generators; the nuclear, offshore oil and gas industries; and the construction industry?
The $64,000 question is, how many mines would Labour keep open? How many times must we keep asking the same question? How many pits would Labour retain, and for how long?
We heard again tonight the myth of coal reserves. Labour keeps saying that energy supplies that would keep us energy-sufficient for hundreds of years are being irrevocably lost. In the words of the Library research paper:
Such a view is over-simplified.
That is charitable, for Labour's claim is certainly overstated, and definitely misleading. There are large reserves in theory, but new pits would not be sunk to exploit them, because of cost.
The Select Committee stated:
In fact, the problem for British Coal is not the availability of reserves but the high investment costs of new pits … which are much higher than opencast costs elsewhere in the world.
The Committee produced revised figures:
Taking all mines together, the ratio of reserves to production at present levels of output and assuming present prices is 21 years. Whether or not the number of British Coal's deep mines falls to 15 by 1997, British Coal's output is likely to decline rapidly in the early years of the next century as reserves are exhausted.
That output decline is fact, and inevitable in the free market.
Mining companies freed from state interference could perform much better, as the history of privatisation has repeatedly shown. Coal will join other energy industries privatised since 1979—North sea oil and gas, particularly BP and British Gas, and the electricity supply industry. All those privatisations were great successes, particularly for the consumer.
Since British Gas was privatised in 1986, domestic gas prices have fallen 20 per cent. and industrial prices 28 per cent. in real terms. There has been increased efficiency, and the customer-to-employee ratio has increased more than 30 per cent. Gas sales per employee have risen 18 per cent. All the regional electricity companies have announced domestic price freezes or cuts for this year. Real prices for domestic users have fallen 6.5 per cent. in the last two years.
Competition will be further pursued in both industries by references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, to ensure downward pressure on prices. Whichever way one looks at it, energy privatisation has been singularly successful, yet it was opposed by Opposition Members.
The Bill's key provisions must address certain critical issues and offer essential guarantees. The Bill must offer potential buyers a flexible system of purchase. I believe that that has been secured by the establishment of five regional businesses, with the option for potential purchasers to bid for one or all of them. The Bill must allow management and employee buy-outs. It must not just give clearance to bid but must offer active co-operation, support and Government funding to help in the preparation of bids. Some £200,000 is being allocated per team bid.
The Bill must place great emphasis on safety, and I believe that that is ensured by a full acceptance of recommendations in the Health and Safety Commission report, "The Framework for Health and Safety in Britain's


Coal Mines". Hon. Members on both sides of the House will widely welcome the fact that continuing responsibility for health and safety will remain with the commission.
It is essential that guarantees are given in respect of existing pension funds, to protect existing and future pensioners. It was said tonight that the Government or British Coal are preparing to rip off some surplus pension funds. Let us remember the deficits and underfunding that occurred a few years ago, and who made them up. If there is a surplus in future, it is only right and proper that some of it should be returned to the taxpayer.
The Bill should give the public full protection in cases of subsidence. It appears to contain the necessary provisions, including the general approach adopted by the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, which enjoyed wide support on both sides of the House.
Privatisation of the coal industry is not just about raising money, saving revenue for the Treasury or interfering in the energy market to secure a larger share for coal. It is about freeing up an industry that has for long been restrained by the heavy and intrusive hand of successive Governments. It is about setting management free to think more laterally and to introduce innovation and initiatives that will secure new markets.
This country has some of the best deep mining expertise in the world. The future of the privatised industry does not lie just in British mines, because that expertise—as in the case of British Gas—could become a key international export. British Gas has shown the way in developing overseas interests, and I have no doubt that the privatised coal industry could emulate its record. I wish it Godspeed on that journey.

Mr. Jack Thompson: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) may be interested to know that I am a beneficiary of the mineworkers pension fund, as the recipient of 33p a week. I shall lose a lot of sleep tonight over the taxpayers' contribution to that 33p.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is not in his place, after his reference to mining activities in the county in which I live and which I represent. I should like the hon. Gentleman to visit my constituency and talk to the miners there about the situation at Ellington and Wearmouth collieries in particular, which work coal reserves 10 km out under the North sea. My recollection is that west Virginia is somewhere in the centre of the United States of America.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned American machinery. I spent most of my life working as an engineer in the coal industry, converting and adapting American machines that did not meet British safety standards.
It is with great pride that I can claim membership of the National Union of Mineworkers for 51 years this month —although I assure my hon. Friends that that does not put me in the Zimmer brigade. I worked in the Northumberland coal industry 40 years before becoming a Member of Parliament. My constituency was once one of the largest coal mining communities in Britain, if not the world.
Earlier, the President of the Board of Trade referred to the mines closed under a Labour Government. There were

20 mines in my constituency at one time, but they have all closed—some recently—because their coal reserves were exhausted. The employment that they provided was replaced by work at companies attracted to the area by incentives offered at the time, such as Alcan Aluminium, Searle Pharmaceutical, Glaxo—renamed Synpac after being purchased by a Taiwanese company—and Robinson Chemicals. Others became established in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), including Merck Sharp and Dohme and Boots, taking up the employment slack when mines were closed.
I may be unique in being the only Member of Parliament to have worked in the coal industry before its nationalisation. Believe it or not, I worked in the mines for three years before 1947. I see some astonished faces on the Conservative Benches, but I have worn well. Anyone who has worked in the industry will know that mining engineers do take the wear pretty well.
I cannot claim to have happy memories of those times, although it is fair to say that the Ashington coal company was probably one of the best of a bad lot, given the coal owners of the day. The arrangements in those pits were anything but ideal. Pay and conditions were poor, production was the god and safety was a secondary consideration. Miners' lives were completely dominated by the interests of the pit. Not only were miners hired and fired on the whim of management but if an employee lived in a company house as a tenant, any sons in the family were expected to work in one of the mines after leaving school. Some tenants were evicted for failing to comply with that requirement.
At that time, it was common practice to send for employees at any time of the day or night, seven days a week. Working conditions were often extremely unpleasant and dangerous. Dust, water and bad roof conditions had to be endured. Equipment—some of which miners had to purchase out of their wages—was primitive. Pithead baths, safety helmets, footwear, protective clothing and even the local hospital—now in the process of being closed—were mainly financed by miners' contributions. As I have said, that was one of the better mining companies of the time. I shudder to think what conditions were like in other coalfields.
Nationalisation not only brought vastly improved conditions for miners but recognised the value of coal as a national resource, following the need to rebuild our economy after the war. Since then, coal has consistently made a significant contribution to our energy needs. I am sure that Conservative Members will claim that, when the Bill is enacted, the circumstances will be different. Forty years on, a vast expansion of mining technology will prevent the return of such conditions. Time will tell, of course, but there is some evidence of the attitudes that are likely to prevail under privatisation.
I am in close touch with what is happening at Ellington colliery, in Northumberland. For some time, parts of its mining activity have been conducted on a contractual basis, involving the private sector. Initially, the private contractors were involved in the limited development that was taking place; now, large sections of support services are included—for instance, transport and engineering maintenance. Many ex-British Coal employees are being blackmailed into accepting work with the contractors. They are doing exactly the same job as before, earning a basic wage and receiving no sick pay or pensions. They are


given minimal holidays and there is scant regard for many of the safety regulations. That is probably a foretaste of miners' conditions under privatisation in the 1990s.
The Bill is the final piece that the Government are putting into place to remove any co-ordinated national influence on the vital energy industries. Oil, gas and electricity all now respond to market forces; coal will join them, and the withdrawal of Government influence from the critical role played by the energy industries in our economy will be complete.
Perhaps the Opposition should learn a lesson from the crafty way in which the Government began the whole process, especially in relation to the privatisation of the electricity industry—permitting, if not deliberately encouraging, the dash for gas, and appointing British Coal board members who felt little enthusiasm about working for a nationalised industry. That was followed by a policy of closing pits and writing off huge potential coal reserves, along with minimal investment in research and development relating not only to clean coal technology but to technology to produce oil and gas from coal—technology that is important for the future.
Let me give another example involving Ellington colliery. In the early 1980s, an area of coal reserves was identified to the north of the existing mine workings. To reach the coal, it was necessary to drive tunnels to, and then through, faulted strata. Tunnelling began in 1983, the year when I left the mine, and the work has still not been completed.
Almost throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the mine made substantial profits. Few of those profits went into this important development. Only after a meeting last year between the Minister, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and myself did things begin to move. The colliery restarted the development. The project is taking longer than the development of the Channel tunnel, and has made much less progress, but it is vital to the mine.
Even under privatisation, those future coal reserves should have been opened up, so that someone interested in buying the mine could at least have seen them. The tunnellers, however, are still trying to get through the fault —not because the operation involved is difficult but because of the lack of investment. None the less, it should be noted that Ministers sometimes respond to representations.
Too often, the miners have been blamed for the industry's problems when management has been the real culprit. Little criticism has been levelled at management. I do not support management buy-outs; I see little advantage in having an industry run by those who created many of its problems in the first place. I shall oppose the Bill, in the interests of not only the miners but the nation arid the future generations who will pay the price for the employment of political dogma against national interests.
The Minister will visit my constituency on Monday and will talk to representatives of Britich Alcan Aluminium. Its power station in the area has power lines on British Coal land, and the extraction of sea water for cooling purposes also takes place on that land. The company clearly wants to be granted a privileged position, and to be allowed to purchase the land to protect its power station and its interests generally.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Charles Hendry.

Mr. Charles Hendry: Like several of my hon. Friends, as a young politician I cut my teeth on an area known for its mining industry. As a 23-year-old, I had the privilege and pleasure of standing against the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who won with a huge majority. I well remember visiting the mining villages of Cowie and Airth in the constituency. I was viewed with some shock—I understand that I was the first Conservative ever seen there.

Mr. O'Neill: And the last.

Mr. Hendry: When the villagers got over the shock, they went out and re-elected the sitting Member of Parliament, giving him a vastly increased majority. The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right in saying that I was the last Conservative Member to visit the area.
Undeterred by my experience, I contested Mansfield in the 1987 election, with somewhat more success—it was the most marginal result in the country. I have one abiding memory of the constituency and the campaign. The night before polling day, I went into the Mansfield miners' welfare club, where the steward on the door immediately took the rosette off my lapel because he wanted to wear it. We had to send out for extra "Vote Hendry" badges. When the Labour candidate turned up, he was asked to leave, because he had supported the National Union of Mineworkers during the strike.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Another scab. [Interruption.]

Mr. Hendry: Inevitably, my interest in those constituencies means that I feel very sad about the way in which the mining industry has declined there. Both the pits based in Mansfield—Crown Farm and Sherwood—have now closed, although there is a glimmer of hope. The closures were referred to by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), who is a doughty fighter for the mining industry—as, indeed was his predecessor, Mr. Andy Stewart, who was a great friend of the industry. The hon. Gentleman referred to the prospective purchase of Clipstone under licensing to Richard Budge and Company. I think that shows that, where the nationalised industry has failed to work, there is hope for pits in the private sector.
I believe that, in small communities that have grown up purely around the pits, those pits should be kept going wherever possible. It is difficult for such communities to attract new investment—particularly large inward investment, which will inevitably be made in areas with a larger population. That is the key issue which is exemplified by Clipstone. Can the mines be run better, more efficiently and more in the interests of their customers and their workers in the public sector or in the private sector?
I make no apology for being an absolute believer in the principle of privatisation. It means that people can plan ahead for the long term—I shall come back to that point in a moment. Privatisation stimulates enterprise and initiative. It gives managers the ability to do what they believe is right and frees them from the dead hand of Government. I say that with tremendous feeling, because a few years ago when, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), I was a special adviser at the Department of Trade and Industry, I experienced the involvement of the Government in another nationalised industry, the Post Office. Even with a benevolent


Government who wished to interfere as little as possible, that interference made it more difficult for the industry to operate as it ought to.
I remember well a meeting between my Minister and the chairman of the Post Office to discuss a minor change in the pension plan arrangements for a director of the Post Office Board. As that change had a knock-on effect on public spending, it had to involve a Cabinet Minister and the chairman of that company. That is no way to run a company. It is no way for Ministers to spend their time. If we want industries to do their best, we need to ensure that they are taken away from that interference. Nationalised industries cannot compete effectively. They cannot provide the best service for their customers or the best and safest conditions for their workers.
I especially welcome two aspects of the Bill. The first is that management and employees will be encouraged to take part in buy-outs and the Government are making £200,000 available to help them to prepare their bids. I welcome that because I believe that it is right and essential that the expertise that exists in the industry should be retained and should not be passed over without employees having the chance to compete and bid for their pit against others from outside.
I welcome the interest that has been shown by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. I pay tribute to the members of that union for their courage as miners—every miner deserves our respect for the conditions in which they are prepared to work and earn their living—and more particularly for the courage that they showed in standing up to some of the worst aggression that we have seen in this country. They have earned the right to have a greater say in their industry and they have the knowledge to contribute to it. I am glad that the legislation will give them the chance to do so. I hope that in time the National Union of Mineworkers will decide to do so, too.
My second reason for welcoming the Bill is its commitment to safety. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) talking about the family tragedy of the death of his father in the mining industry when he was a young boy. That was 50 years ago. Every industry that operated in bad conditions then has tightened up its working methods and improved its, safety. That has happened through improvements in technology, greater safety requirements, more laws and public pressure. I am convinced that the commitment to safety enshrined in the Bill will ensure that levels of safety in the mining industry will continue to rise.
As the Member for High Peak, I have to say that the growth of safety standards owes much to the mines research establishment of the Health and Safety Executive in my constituency at Harpur Hill and the tremendous work that is done there to find out ever safer ways of mining. I am particularly encouraged by the fact that the Health and Safety Commission, which looks after the HSE, will be the sole regulatory body ensuring safety in the mines.
We must now free the mines so that they can compete effectively for the maximum market share. Tonight I have heard Labour Members say that they need to know now how many pits there will be. I am afraid that that simply shows how little they understand about the way industry works. If they had asked a few years ago how many cars Rover would produce in 1994, how many passengers

British Airways would carry, what percentage of British Telecom public telephone boxes would be operational or what dividend would be payable to people in the National Freight Consortium who had become owners of their own company, the answers given by Ministers would have underestimated those companies' potential. Every privatised company has performed beyond expectations.
Moreover, the move towards privatisation will enable the mining industry to make the long-term investment decisions that it believes are right. It will make them because they are economic and sound and can be justified in the long term. That includes not only the development of pits but the long-term commitment to desulphurisation. Again, I declare a constituency interest. The lime for the desulphurisation process will come mostly from my constituency and that will ensure that many jobs are protected in High Peak. That demonstrates the way in which a dynamic mining industry has a knock-on effect and creates and maintains jobs elsewhere. All Conservative Members seek to encourage that. We support the Bill tonight because we believe that it contributes to that process.
The history of privatisation is one of remarkable and continuing success. Lossmakers of which we despaired which required ever more Government money have become world beaters. For too long, the mining industry in Britain has been deprived of the opportunity to be part of that success story. I welcome the Bill. I shall vote for it because at long last it gives the coal industry in Britain and the miners in that industry a chance to take part in that success story.

Mr. David Hanson: The debate today has shown the chasm that exists between the Government and the Labour party. I enjoyed listening to my hon. Friends—in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—give a stout defence of the principle of public ownership.
The Bill tackles the wrong issues at the wrong time in the wrong way. It will come as no surprise to Conservative Members that the Labour party opposes the privatisation in the Coal Industry Bill. It is a folly. To privatise the coal industry is wrong, but to do so at this time is simply criminal because it will undoubtedly have a great knock-on effect on my constituency and others represented by my hon. Friends.
The Government have been strangling coal for the past two years. This is the death knell. The background to the privatisation is a deliberate policy on the part of the Government. All the actions of the Government have been damaging to the long-term prospects of the industry. Their actions have damaged the morale of my constituency and the safeguarding of communities such as north Delyn, which has been damaged so heavily in the past two years by Government policies and which faces no future if privatisation goes through.
Government policy is a failure. We debate the issue at a time when none of the problems created by the privatisations of gas and electricity have gone away. The nuclear power industry is still subsidised by more than £1 billion a year and has a protected market share. The regional electricity companies are still buying power from new gas-fired power stations, which they now own, rather than from cheaper coal-fired power stations. As my hon.


Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said, coal is still being imported which is mined by cheap labour in Colombia and other countries. The French interconnector is still being used and is subsidised by the United Kingdom's nuclear levy.
Privatisation at this point in time tackles the wrong issue. Who owns the industry is purely a dogmatic matter for members of the Government. They should be more worried about securing the future of the coal industry instead of settling old scores of 20 years ago, tilting at old windmills and putting forward dogmatic ideas for the future.
The generation of electricity will remain the main market of the coal industry whether it is in private or in public hands. The volume of coal has been fixed until 1999. If British Coal cannot survive and compete in that market, how on earth will private operators compete? British Coal is already making enormous strides to improve efficiency and productivity. At my own pit of Point of Ayr in north Wales much has been achieved in the past 18 months under the pressure of the need for a more efficient coal market. The colliery in my constituency now produces coal based on less than £1 per gigajoule. The miners in my constituency have bent over backwards to improve productivity. In 1987–88, they produced 3·1 tonnes of coal per man shift. Last year, when they were still threatened with closure and on the hit list, they produced 14·7 tonnes of coal per man shift.
The pit in my constituency needs help. It needs a market share and investment, but what it does not need—and what I have not heard anybody in my constituency say that it needs—is a transfer to private ownership. None of the miners in my constituency want that. Throughout the debate on this issue, I have not had a single letter from anybody in my constituency who wants that. Nobody but the Conservatives, who were roundly defeated in my constituency at the previous general election, want privatisation.
Would a private operator have had the millions of pounds necessary to invest to bring productivity in my local pit up to the new levels? I doubt it. Even if an operator had managed to stump up the £2 million needed to purchase the capital equipment installed in the past two years at the Point of Ayr, could it have afforded the weeks of disruption and training necessitated when the equipment was installed and the changeover made? I doubt it. If, in the brave new world of the free market, production was disrupted for any period, the operator could wake up to see markets vanish and profits disappearing.
Should we be selling the pit now after public sector investment has been made to create an efficient, productive market? There are no guarantees in the Bill for the future of the coal industry and it is likely only to accelerate the pit closure programme.
This very week, in British Coal's "Westminster Brief', the Minister is reported as saying:
The political straitjacket of nationalisation has no place in the industry of the 21st Century. Only by allowing real competition in coal, only by letting real business considerations decide the future, can we hope to maintain a viable British Coal industry".
What do "real business considerations" mean in practice for my constituents?
How could private operators provide a better service at the pit in my constituency than British Coal? They could do it in several ways: they could lower the wages of the staff who work in that pit, and they will do so. They could

provide less money for research and development, and they will do so. They could and will have the option of reducing safety measures. Nothing in the Bill will protect the pit's safety record.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanson: No, I shall not let the Minister intervene because time is limited and we must make progress.
Private operators could lower safety regulations and they will do so. They could employ fewer miners and they will do so. Private industry will go for a quick kill. Privatisation will not lead to greater efficiency because we have already had that over the past three years under British Coal, particularly in my region.
The Bill is an admission of failure by the Government. Productivity could have been increased and any improvements could have been made while the coal industry was under public ownership. Their lack of responsibility and action should be condemned.
The Bill is full of contradictions that should be highlighted. The major one is that, instead of stabilising and strengthening the coal industry, the Bill will have the opposite effect. Some of its worst faults lie in the duties given to the coal authority to license private operators. Clause 2 establishes a general duty for the coal authority to promote the continuation of the coal industry in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the coal authority is charged with promoting competition among private operators. The dichotomy of protecting an industry while allowing competition should not escape hon. Members.
Clause 2 states that the Coal Authority should seek an economically viable coal industry "so far as practicable". What the hell, Minister, does that mean?

Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Member that he is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Hanson: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What would the Minister say is the meaning of "so far as practicable"? The Coal Authority will be as much use as a chocolate fire guard. The coal industry will not in any shape or form be protected by a coal authority that seeks to protect both sides of the market.
Privatisation will be to the detriment of several other factors of key concern. We have already heard about mine safety. The Bill contains 20 lines on mine safety. Without a statutory duty on the coal authority and with no draft licences yet available, the ability of the coal authority to intervene is not sufficiently robust. I also remain unconvinced of the Government's reassurances on the mine rescue service.
We have heard about the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, which is to be abolished at a time when the work force increasingly need additional welfare services and when more than 500,000 people in our communities benefit from such provisions. We have heard about environmental liabilities. The Bill's provisions for dealing properly with environmental concerns are poor. Coal is a messy business—water pollution can and does occur. Gas emissions are not unknown, yet the Bill contains no commitment to cleaning them up or making polluters accept their responsibilities.
If the Bill is passed unamended, private mine operators will have few environmental liabilities and no good


neighbour policy, as undertaken by British Coal. The public sector will, as always, pick up the bill for any environmental lapses by the private sector. British Coal Enterprise has not been mentioned, nor has subsidence. The question of pensions is skated over and massive powers are put in the hands of the Secretary of State. What happens to those constituents of mine who might face redundancy under privatisation? That issue has not been considered.
The Bill should be opposed because it is a travesty of justice. I am proud to support a publicly owned industry, which is in the best interests of those I represent.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It has been an interesting debate, because some of the Tories who have spoken in favour of the Government and privatisation have not been altogether with it. I got the impression that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) was trying to explain that she supported hardly any aspect of the Bill, but that she would vote for the Government and privatisation even though her heart was not in it.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) told us frankly that he was in favour of privatisation. He is in favour of all sorts of privatisation, apart from that of his own houses. He is careful to keep them. I want to make it clear that, although I said that I would drive a bulldozer if he lay in front of it, I would not drive a bulldozer because I am in favour of opencast coal production.

Mr. Eggar: That is what you said.

Mr. Skinner: No. I would drive the bulldozer to ensure that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton got out of the way.
I should like to put opencast mining in its proper perspective. Last year, there were 18 million tonnes of opencast coal production at a time when pits were shutting. That is equivalent to about 15 coal mines in Britain. Under privatisation, the chances are that there could be 20 million tonnes or even more. We should therefore consider the matter from the viewpoint of the miners who will be thrown on the scrap heap, not to mention the massive environmental damage that will accrue in my constituency.
Opencast mining is easy; it is easy to rip off the turf. The Coal Board is shifting a village. About 200 houses are going to be moved from one village and put in another. That shows the money that can be made out of opencast mining. Everybody should understand that opencast mining means stripping the first 200 or 300 ft of ground, and the rest is sterilised for ever. A mine cannot be drifted once opencast has taken place. The reserves of coal that remain will have gone for good. That is why, apart from the environmental considerations, opencast mining is a dangerous practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens North (Mr. Evans) referred to the Lancashire coalfield. My guess is that there will be opencast production in all those coalfields if the operators can get away with it. The same will be true in Derbyshire. Not one pit is left in my constituency or in Chesterfield, although there is one combined operation, between north-east Derbyshire and south Yorkshire. When I was first elected president of the Derbyshire miners in

1964, there were more than 30 pits in the Derbyshire coalfield, even more in Nottingham and many more in Yorkshire.
I want to talk about shutting pits, because it needs to be put on the record. Yes, pits have been shut ever since Waleswood in 1949, two years after nationalisation, when there was a great outcry and the men stopped down the pit. Every single one was offered a job somewhere else. Do not get me wrong—I am not saying that it was a wonderful thing to shut those pits. I did not like the idea when Parkhouse colliery, where I worked, was shut in 1962 and 1963, but at least, when I asked about a job, I was offered six or seven at different collieries within a perimeter of about six miles.
Contrast that with what happens today. In 1993—and now in 1994—hardly any of the miners at the pits that have been shut have had the chance of a job. The Government talk about Labour Governments shutting pits. I did not like it, and I voted against, but we should set that against a background in which people had the chance to work in a neighbouring colliery or sometimes in another region.
It must also be set against the background that there were never more than 1·5 million people on the dole. We should always remember that, until 1979, there were never more than 1·5 million people without jobs in Britain. This Government have 4 million people out of work. It is not 2·7 million—what about all the miners from Sheffield who are on payment schemes? They are not included in the unemployment figures, but they should all be added on.
We all know that, if we went down any street and counted, we would see thousands—there must be scores of thousands of unemployed people in south Wales, Yorkshire and Durham, who are all on the schemes. They do not add to the unemployment figures—and what about all their children, who are also on slave labour schemes?
We do not want any lectures from this Tory Government or the President of the Board of Trade and his sidekicks when they talk of shutting pits. There is a qualitative difference between shutting a pit but giving someone the chance of a job somewhere else and doing so against a background of 4 million people on the scrap heap.

Mr. Allan Rogers: rose—

Mr. Skinner: I cannot give way to my hon. Friend, because many other hon. Friends would like to speak.
It has often been said before, but it needs stressing, that no other industry in Britain can claim that it has increased productivity by 35 per cent. during the past 12 months. What an idea—privatising an industry that has increased productivity by that amount. When I first went into the pit in 1949, output was 1 tonne per man shift throughout the industry, and it was hard work. Now, output is 10 tonnes for every miner in Britain, and in some coalfields it is as high as 40 tonnes per man, yet the Government have the gall to say that they need to privatise the mines.
We all know why. It is a conspiracy between this lousy Government and British Coal executives—the members of the board. The miners group met them in July 1992, when some of my hon. Friends were present. I confronted Clarke, the chairman, and asked if he would give us a guarantee that he would oppose privatisation, just as Ezra did before him. He said, "No, I can't give that guarantee." I asked them all, one by one, to stand up and be counted.
To his credit, Moses, with whom we had some great battles during the strike actually said, "Not me, Skinner. I


wouldn't join a privatised board. I was born and bred in this industry like thee, so don't say that to me." Then Clarke said, "Don't anyone else answer that question." He picked up his papers and told us, "We're not staying another minute."
From that moment, I knew that the idea of a privatised coal industry was linked to the board taking over when they had the chance. Of course the executives do not want 30 or 40 pits—Neil Clarke only wants a few. He wants to get hold of the 30 million tonnes for the power stations, and he does not want anyone else to compete with him.
When I heard that Tory, the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), talking about all the shenanigans at Wearmouth colliery and about shifting all that tackle—important engineering machinery—I knew why they were taking it away: because they did not want any private entrepreneur to run Wearmouth or any of the other collieries. They want that 30 million tonne captive market, and they do not want anyone to compete with them, so that they can make a massive killing.
By the end of the century, it could all be over. However, we must be optimistic. We socialists cannot afford to acknowledge that we will allow that to happen, because we clearly have an opportunity to win next time. This privatisation must be set against the background that the Tory Government will not last very long. We have a wimp of a Prime Minister and hardly any Tories were here to cheer on the President of the Board of Trade today. The fan club had gone. One of the most interesting features of this debate is that the right hon. Gentleman used to have phalanxes of Tories behind him, but they are no longer there. The game is up.
Tory Members are more concerned about returning to their constituencies to try to stem the tide that will surely engulf them in a Canadian-style obliteration at the next election. I can see it coming, and that is why we must prepare and know what we are going to do. We must therefore ensure that we do not allow this conspiracy to continue much longer.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North mentioned the women of Parkside, and I heard one or two sneers from the Tory benches. What were those women doing there, and why have they been sitting at the pithead? To try to stop British Coal filling in the shafts, because they are optimistic and, in all the gloom and despair, have been trying to stop British Coal pouring cement down the shafts, so that, when the Labour Government get in, we shall be able to start the process up again.
Make no mistake about it: the British coal industry is competitive. One cannot have a 350 per cent. increase since 1984 and not be in the frame for selling, which is why it is important that, when that political sea change takes place, we should take advantage of that competitiveness. We know why privatisation is on the cards—because Cecil Parkinson said so, and that must stick in the gullet of Tory wets. Is that not roughly the size of it? There was all the acclaim at the Tory conference, but it was symbolic, as their hearts are not really in it.
However, there is money involved. What are they going to do? They will get hold of the two pension funds. which have £14 billion in them. That is written into the Bill, although not precisely. They have written in that they will get hold of the surplus and use it—they might use it as bait to catch someone. Who knows, Neil Clarke might have

another crack at the pension fund, or this Tory Government might use it to offset all the other difficulties that they have been running into.
But it is a scandal. It is corruption and sleaze if they get their hands on that pension fund, when it should go to the miners, their widows and all those who have contributed. There should be no talk of a pension holiday; the money should go to all those who have spilled their blood over the years.
The same is true of concessionary coal. There are no guarantees. The Government say that they will guarantee it to pensioners, but they are really saying that they will buy them out. As all my hon. Friends know, that is what is happening in the coalfields.
There is no guarantee for the working miners. For the information of Nottinghamshire miners—if they are not already aware of it—the new contractors, such as Budge, are already telling miners when they recruit them that they will give them a job, but instead of £5·50 per hour it will be £3·50. What is more, there is no concessionary coal and one takes it or leaves it. When 4 million people are out of work, it is a seller's market. That is the background. So anyone who listens to Ministers saying that concessionary coal will be preserved should forget it. That is the real scene.
The same is true of subsidence. It is not spelt out in the Bill. Literally thousands of people will suffer. It is easy to imagine the arguments that will take place about whether the subsidence at Clipstone or any of the other mines belongs to British Coal, which has just left the scene, or to Budge. Many people will lose as a result of subsidence. British Coal has not been the softest touch of all time, and we have a massive landslip at Bolsolver that will cost about £1·5 million to put right, but it will be even worse in the forthcoming period, if and when the Bill goes through.
Another problem, which has been mentioned before, is the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. If anyone thinks that it is all about football fields, they should forget it. CISWO is a bigger organisation than that. It is all about providing help for disabled miners and convalescent homes for disabled miners and their widows. Thousands of them go there every year. It is all about providing aids for the disabled which are not provided by the local authority. It is all about providing holidays for some of the disabled and mentally handicapped kids of miners.
So the CISWO operation is not simply about providing a cricket field and one or two other bits and bobs. It is a massive organisation. I hope that the Minister will tell us that CISWO will remain intact, because, once the Government start interfering with it, the whole thing will break down.
The same is true of Mines Rescue—what a wonderful organisation. Everyone has spoken about it over the years; about the fact that, when there is a disaster in the pit. or even the threat of one, Mines Rescue is on the scene—the professionals. They were the paramedics long before anyone else thought about it—paramedics underground. Mines Rescue will be dismantled. There is no reference in the Bill to its being saved.
The Bill has been brought into being to carry through the revenge against the miners, as a result of the Tones' dogma from yesteryear. It has no relevance to the present day. Everyone knows that the best privatisations have been and gone—all the big money that was whittled away and handed over to the richer in our society. All that has gone. This privatisation and that of British Rail does not add up


to that type of money at all, like gas and electricity and rain. We are discussing a pettifogging privatisation that is based purely on dogma.
I have to say, in spite of all that, that we have to be ready for government. I say first—it has not been said yet today, but I had better put it on record—that we have to take coal back into public ownership. That is the view of all those in the miners group. It is the view of literally hundreds of Members of Parliament in every region of Britain. I do not say it with the idea that I am putting it in the manifesto, but I am trying to do so because I do not believe that we can resolve the key problems otherwise.
I do not believe that we can rescue the pensions unless we are in control of the industry. I do not believe that we can rescue CISWO unless we control it. I do not believe that we can sort out the problems of people who get concessionary coal unless we are in charge of the industry. What is more, we must curb those imports, and that can only be done by having a publicly owned industry, so that we can demand that those imports are curtailed; so that we can stop the French interconnector link, which is equivalent to about five pits; so that we can curb the opencasting. We need to be in control of our own affairs.
Some of my hon. Friends have mentioned that rail is on the agenda for the next Labour Government. I will run through the Lobbies to carry it through. I will go through the Lobby tonight—we all will—to vote against privatisation. It logically follows that we are not discussing a lot of money: we are discussing a minor privatisation that we could do without even paying them anything. I am not saying that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will go that far, but I just put it in their minds en passant.
We are discussing an important subject. It is about shaping the future. We have to be able to show people outside that we do not just vote against things here in the House of Commons, but that we are starting to formulate plans to mop up the massive unemployment figures that surround us every day. It is a prime example of having an energy policy which is co-ordinated among all the various sectors. In order to do so, we have to ensure that we take coal back into public ownership.
It has been a good debate. The Tories have packed up and run away. I will leave it now to my hon. Friends.

Mr. John Cummings: It is perhaps the first time—at least in the past 150 years—that a Member for Easington has spoken in the Chamber without having a working colliery in his constituency. In the past 15 years, the massacre of an industry has taken place, for one reason and one reason alone, and that is to slim the industry down for privatisation. It is a disgrace that Tories, who have favoured the privatisation of the coal mining industry, the jewel in the crown, are so thin on the Benches this evening.
Tens of thousands of miners were working in the Easington constituency in 1951, thousands in the 1980s and nil in the 1990s. Perhaps in future we should consider employment trends in the region rather than unemployment trends, because recent European figures have shown that employment in Easington has dropped by more than one third in the past 25 years. Those are the figures from Europe, which cannot be massaged or changed by a

Government who have been so clever in changing the method of assessing unemployment figures more than 25 times in the past 15 years.
Having understood that the industry is to be slimmed down for privatisation, Ministers must be asked why, out of £20 billion-worth of investment into the industry, at the flick of a switch more than £20 million-worth of expensive coal mining equipment and machinery has been left to flood at Easington colliery.
Those questions are perhaps worthy of some national public inquiry, because they do not affect Easington only, but many other collieries throughout the country, especially Wearmouth colliery, where about £10 million-worth of equipment has been stripped out in the past few months, perhaps to deter potential investors from moving in to exploit the many tens of millions of tonnes of coal that still lie under the sea.
I should have thought that a responsible Government, bragging about an expenditure of £20 billion during the past 15 years, would try to underpin the taxpayers' investment by encouraging a market to exploit the many hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal that lie in and beyond the coastline of Durham, that will be sterilised for ever, ever more. As has been said before, one cannot opencast mine coal reserves that lie under the sea, so they are lost to our generation and future generations for ever.
Questions must also be asked, with £20 billion-worth of investment, about what happens to the highly skilled and motivated work force, basically born and bred to work in a mine—educated to work in a coal mine. Those people now find themselves on the scrap heap. Dignified workers, who have always earned reasonable wages, and at times excellent wages, are now working as security guards for £1·10 an hour—or £1·20 an hour if one provides one's own guard dog. That is not a joke; that is what is happening in the north-east now.
We must deal with the awful incestuous relationship between the suppliers and the generators of electricity. The suppliers are now the generators, and people are paying through the nose for that relationship.
What will the legacy be in Easington and other coal mining areas when the last collieries close? In Easington, we can immediately point the finger at colliery housing. There are hundreds of colliery houses in and around the colliery. All my life, I have lived within 400 yd of a working pit, and we have tolerated the dust, the noise and the clamour because that was our work, and the pits were where we earned our wages.
Now that the colliery will no longer be there, what are we to do with the legacy? What are we to do with the modernised colliery houses grouped together, which need tremendous sums spending on them to provide a decent environment for the former mineworkers who now occupy them? The need comes at a time when local government finances are being squeezed, and there is less money for grants. Will the new Coal Authority take the responsibility for what is left of colliery housing, and for providing a decent environment for former mineworkers?
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, and said, "Don't mention parks." Fair enough; I shall not mention parks, although they exist, as do football fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, welfare halls, brass bands and other cultural and leisure facilities.


There are tens of millions of pounds in the coal industry benevolent fund—a fund that was paid for by miners out of their pay packets every week for the past 15 years.
Has the Minister thought about what will happen to that money? There are social workers too, who provide a vital service for retired aged or disabled mineworkers. Once again, the question arises at a time when local authority social services departments are being cut to the bone. The money in the fund was all provided by ourselves out of our pay notes week by week and year by year—ha'pennies from our grandfathers, pennies from our fathers and shillings from ourselves. There are vast sums of money lying there, and they must be protected and used for retired mineworkers in the future.
What about the legacy of methane gas? That problem existed in Blyth because of the closure of Bates colliery, and 12 boreholes had to he sunk in and around the town. A tremendous debate took place between Blyth council and the National Coal Board. The board said, "That is not our responsibility, it is the local authority's responsibility." But in the end British Coal relented, and took the responsibility for sinking the shafts.
Will the residual Coal Authority be responsible for maintaining the integrity of collieries in future, in case someone wants to take out a licence and operate them, perhaps in 18 months' time? If it will, I should like to know where the money will come from to make such an operation successful.
There is also the problem of mine water pollution. The Government should be careful, because mine water pollution from a colliery that closed about 20 years ago is now percolating through the garden of the Bishop of Durham. There are seven pumping stations in the county of Durham, pumping billions of gallons of water every year, and if someone does not take responsibility for continuing those operations, within six months of the pumps being switched off, there will be pollution in the River Wear at Bishop Auckland. Within 18 months, there will be pollution at Lumley water treatment works, and if that becomes contaminated, someone will have to pick up a bill for about £25 million.
I want to know what will happen in Durham. The Minister will have to give a categorical assurance that someone will be responsible for the pumping operations; otherwise, there will be orange polluted water in the river around the castle and the cathedral, at a world heritage site. There will be gross pollution in the River Wear. The people of Durham and Sunderland are sitting on an ecological time bomb, which could have an awful effect on the environment unless the Minister gives us categorical assurances tonight that the residual body will be given teeth and the money to tackle those problems.
That is extremely important, because major Japanese factories with investments of hundreds of millions of pounds have located in that area of the county of Durham because of the quality of the groundwater. Detailed surveys carried out by Durham county council show that, if pumping operations cease at the seven pumping stations, pollution will occur within months.
I ask the Minister to recognise publicly that that is a major issue in Durham, and that the situation is so serious that it is crucial to deal with it properly. Nothing must fall down the cracks during the process of transferring the environmental liabilities from British Coal. I am confident

that anyone thinking about licensing or buying collieries in the north-east will not want to handle several million pounds' worth of pumping costs.
I also seek from the Minister a clear statement on the outcome of parallel work being undertaken by the Secretary of State for the Environment, especially in the context of the review of minerals planning guidance, in which the Government are apparently considering the framework of legal responsibility for pollution from abandoned mines. The scenario in Durham that I have painted must have parallels elsewhere in the country—although I believe that in Durham the position is more serious than elsewhere. I look forward to hearing some assurances when the Minister winds up the debate.
I shall vote against the Bill. I am sure that the relevant amendments will be tabled in Committee, and that the Bill will be opposed tooth and nail through all its stages.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Mr. Deputy Mayor—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was just trying to promote you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of the aspects of privatisation that worries me is safety in the privatised industry. Having worked down the mine for 27 years, and for 14 years at the coal face, I have a pretty good idea of what happens.
I have heard stories about small private mines and what happens at them. We all know that entrepreneurs will buy the collieries, but I hope that some of them are decent people. It remains to be seen. However, some of them are worthy of watching. We must watch them carefully because safety down the mines is paramount to people working there and their families above ground whose loved ones have been lost and buried and families have become fatherless.
If I may, I shall cite a couple of frightening stories of what safety means in a private mine. A few years ago, the mines inspectorate turned a blind eye, but it has a big role to play in the future of the coal industry. In one private mine, the haulage rope snapped and because a new one could not be afforded, a knot was tied in the old rope and the haulage system was started up and the rope was tied to a truck at the top of the bank. The knot did not hold and a man was killed.
Another instance which occurred in a private mine was nearer to my home. A private mine, which employed about 15 men, bought a cheap, large electricity socket to be used down the mine from a scrappy somewhere and plugged it into the system in the mine to get the machinery going. Lo and behold, within 12 hours, the plug caught fire and almost caused a fatality. Six or seven men almost lost their lives and one man was rushed to hospital, never to go back down the pit again.
We have heard a lot about the £20 billion that has been invested in the collieries over the years. I said to the President of the Board of Trade earlier that some gross indecencies have occurred over the spending of that money. I mentioned the transport system, which was put in the pit yards and left for over two years, accruing a bill for the colliery of £300,000. We only discovered that when we fought to save the colliery because the books had to be opened.
I could cite incidents, Mr. Deputy Mayor—sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am thinking of the council. It must be your dickey bow. I could cite incidents where the worth of


big machines, trying to be proved in the heading, have been pulled out into the roadways, pushed aside and covered up, and the cost of that machine has been left to the collieries. Wooden chocks and roof supports have been left on the face to rot, never to be recovered. That is where that £20 billion was lost. Pieces of machinery were never recovered and it was never attempted.
Opencast is a big subject in Northumberland, as it is in the whole country. I tabled a written question two months ago asking the Minister about the state of play regarding opencast in Northumberland and Durham and how many tonnes of coal were available. The answer was 16·5 million tonnes of coal at approved sites in Northumberland and Durham. That is the answer to the earlier question. We are not talking about entrepreneurs taking over mines, but about entrepreneurs taking over opencast.
Two or three Conservative Members spoke violently against opencast. They should not think for one minute that we will avoid opencast, because the whole purpose of the Bill is to move from deep coal mining to opencast. We have seen that happen in Northumberland. We even have the figure for Northumberland—-16·5 million tonnes of coal. Anyone taking on the mines in Northumberland will get that coal, but the pits will shut.
We have seen what has happened in Wearmouth and we do not want that to happen in Northumberland. We have seen what has happened in the workshops and we do not want that to happen to the workshops in Northumberland. Ellington colliery is on the fringe. I hope that we can save it and that there is a future for it, because there is a lot of coal there. I have my doubts and I have voiced them not only to the entrepreneurs who will buy the pit, but to people in the industry. I believe that the entrepreneurs want opencast.
If the people of Northumberland and Durham want to see the end of the industry, they will see the beginning of a new one—opencast from one end of Durham to the other end of Northumberland; dug up every inch of way. That will include the constituency of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). He will have to face the wrath of his constituents. We should chuck him in and cement him up as well. The deadly side of opencast is the prospect for the people of Northumberland, because that is what the Bill means.

Sir Trevor Skeet: This is a great opportunity to say one or two words on the mining industry. Looking back over the years, considering the Reid report and the Samuel report, I never envisaged that it would come to the stage when the mining industry of the United Kingdom would be so attenuated. I can remember when production was about 44 cwt of coal output per man shift and now it has exceeded £10 milion tonnes per annum. The miners have done a great job over the years and I am sure that, in the segment where they will be operating, they will continue to do good work.
I have never been able to understand how people can work underground for their whole lives and then recommend to their sons that they should do that as well. However, those miners have been close to the ground of such matters; they have done a superb job and I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has decided that

the pension plans must be considered carefully and that the money which we have been pouring into industry for years —£20 billion, of which about £8 billion has gone into machinery—has been a fitting investment in an industry which has now reduced in size.
Mining is not the only industry which has fallen into disrepair over the years. The steel industry has been truncated. I remember that at one stage the production was to be about 35 million tonnes per annum in the United Kingdom and is now well down at about 12 million tonnes. We have seen one or two private sector companies almost eliminated because of the recession, and disrepair comes to many industries if there is not a market.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman said that seeing the mining industry come into disrepair makes him sad. I am sure that it does. Surely his memory does not stop at a particular time. Does he remember how bankrupt and how rotten the coal industry was in private hands? Does he remember how the royal commission in 1918 said that it could not leave the industry in the corrupt hands of the private coal owners and that it had to be nationalised? That took a long time, and into public ownership came a bankrupt industry that was in complete disrepair, because profits were being sucked out of it. Being a public industry turned it round and made it the efficient industry it is today.

Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the first step was the taking over of coal rights in 1938. It was not until 1947 that it was decided to nationalise the whole industry and to put it into Government hands. The state has controlled the industry for a long time.
Instead of growing from strength to strength, the industry has dwindled because the market has reduced. That is not the miners' responsibility. British coal was so costly that it could not sell abroad. British coal is probably the cheapest to produce in Europe, compared with German coal and so on. However, the Europeans will accept it only in very small quantities. We want coal to be imported because of the steel industry and other requirements. We find that it is essential to blend it. The state has not been successful in running mines.
The industry has absorbed £20 billion over the years, and it has not been a success. Is that a recommendation for the state to run an operation? Would it not be much wiser to put the industry into the private sector where there are high standards? The private sector has been transformed. It is much more caring, much more responsible and much more adept.
Let us consider Australia and the United States of America. Hanson Industries runs the Peabody company in the United States. It has some problems, I agree. Shell and one or two other companies still have interests in Australia. Many companies successfully operate out there. They are able to bring coal to the United Kingdom at very much lower prices. Of course, the coal industry is becoming more competitive, I hope that, over the years, with the change of ownership, it will be remarkably successful, but that will not be easy. My hon. Friend the Minister does not pretend that there will be an easy ride for it.
Let us consider the era of the Labour Government and remember when Lord Robens was in charge of the National Coal Board. He closed more pits than were ever closed by the Conservatives. As chairman of the National Coal Board, he was primarily concerned to make the industry viable. He faced exactly the same problem that we


have today—a declining market. In the early days, we used to produce gas from coal. That was stopped. Later, coal had a diminished market for electricity production. We now have the additional problem of gas turbines. They are remarkably successful and can be brought into operation very much faster than other methods.

Mr. Rogers: The record should be straight in respect of colliery closures under a Labour Government. In my constituency of Rhondda, at one time there were 63 coal mines. Most collieries were closed during the period of a Labour Government, but it was a process of rationalisation. Very small coal mines were integrated. In a dozen large collieries, the same coal take was worked. It was a process of rationalisation, not of trying to destroy an industry. The hon Gentleman completely distorts the statistics. That process happened in every coalfield in the United Kingdom.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman likes rationalisation and that it should be done gradually. In the Rhondda valley, much investment was brought in from abroad. In that area, or fairly near to it, Japanese investment produced wirelesses and other electronic equipment. Over time, certain industries were developed because others were retired. That is the ideal way to do things, but if the market is eroding at a fast pace, what are we to do?
If miners are prepared to produce coal in abundance and to build stocks to a gigantic height over the years and we then find that we cannot sell that coal either in Europe, elsewhere abroad or on the local market, what should we do? Should those miners produce still more coal which will remain totally unsaleable? Perhaps, in order to reach a viable size, the state industry will have to do what the private sector has done and cut itself to a suitable size at which it can operate.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: If we did the same as we do in the nuclear industry and subsidise coal stocks to the tune of £1 billion a year, we could sell it abroad more cheaply, just as our competitors in Australia, America and South Africa, who are subsidised, do.

Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman talks about subsidies. The industry has had enormous subsidies to the tune of £20 billion over the years. Those subsidies came from the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman must take that point into account and be realistic. We do not like a local industry to be shut down or diminished, but that is sometimes inevitable because of the state of the market. However, the miners are not responsible for that; we should blame the management, that is British Coal or the National Coal Board, as it was. The experiment was tried for many years but it was not satisfactory. There is no way out of our plight.

Mr. Campbell: What about the nuclear levy?

Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the nuclear levy. I was a member of the Committee which considered the electricity legislation. I argued strongly, with the support of the Labour party, that we should keep the nuclear industry in state hands because of the implications and repercussions that were likely to arise. It had to be made a viable industry. It was decided that the best way to do that would be to have a nuclear subsidy or a nuclear levy. That is set out in the Act. The chairman of

the nuclear power body has recommended that, over the next two or three years, it is to be discontinued. Therefore, the industry will cease to be subsidised. It will be as competitive as any other section of private enterprise.
Over about three or four years, I would welcome the elimination of the so-called subsidy, but we should remember that money has to be put aside for the retiring of nuclear power plants. We live in a competitive world. Electricity is produced not only from coal. A little is produced from oil, and more and more is produced from natural gas, which seems to be the in thing these days. The various products must be competitive.
We are asking the private sector, "If you take over certain branches of the industry, can you compete successfully?" They say that they can. In the five areas in which licences are to be granted, some of the deep mines and some of the opencast systems should be linked. A combination of both would make them satisfactory.
The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) mentioned opencast mining. Opencast mining has produced about 60 million tonnes of coal. Much of the mining in the United States of America, Australia, South Africa and elsewhere is opencast. We must compete with that. Mining in the United Kingdom is principally underground, and it is very expensive.
With regard to opencast mining, hon. Members should remember that we have not only the precedent from abroad but the profitability of it. If we had opencast mining, we would be able to compete with South Africa, Australia and the United States. We would be able to compete with Peabody. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that opencast mining is not eliminated, although there will be continuous planning difficulties to get an operation going. In view of some of the restoration work that has been undertaken over the years, full congratulations must go to the companies involved for what they have done to reinstate the land.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a subject which I have closely monitored in my constituency. Coal in opencast mines can be reached at any time in the next century because it can be dug up quite easily. But once mines are shut, millions of tonnes of coal disappear. If it is too expensive to open new mines, the coal will disappear, never to be mined again. The hon. Gentleman is advocating opencast mining and locking away millions of tonnes of coal underground.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Of course, the coal is readily recoverable—the overburden is removed and the coal is taken out when it is needed. My primary aim is to keep miners in jobs. I am sure that a change of ownership would be much more successful because it would make the industry more prosperous.
I shall refer briefly to one or two points that I have in mind. These are problems largely for the Government. There are enormous stocks at the pithead and in the hands of the power-generating companies. When the new licensees take over, what will be the allocation for the liabilities of those stocks because they could be a burden on the market for many years? I agree with everything that has been said about the problem of pollution. The polluter pays, and it could be expensive. Will the licensees be responsible for such problems?


Anyone who takes over an area will be concerned about subsidence. Subsidence can occur at any time in any area. Some of the developments are near towns and villages and can be very expensive. During the passage of the Electricity Bill, I told the Government that one of the principal difficulties in having nuclear power in the privatisation programme would be the unlimited liability which could visit the companies. Will the licensees who are prepared to take over and receive grants be fully compensated for the subsidence which is likely to occur in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years?
Another point that I shall raise briefly is the size of the market which is left. Over the years, we have heard many analyses. A few years ago, Rothschild talked about production in the United Kingdom falling to about 30 million tonnes, and other estimates have been given. I hope that we will not take the mining industry down too far. If we do, it will cease to be as viable as we hope it will become, and it may become more economical to buy more coal of the right quality from abroad.
Now that we are fully participating in Europe, and as most EC countries do not have high-quality coal of their own, I hope that an earnest attempt will be made to pressure the Europeans to take some of our indigenous material. Who are the European producers? Coal is produced mostly in Germany, with small amounts produced in France and Spain. Most parts of Europe do not have coal, and we have the benefit of large quantities of it. I do not want to see resources wasted over the years. If we can get our costs right, and the Minister is determined to secure this, I hope that we will have a thriving industry in the future.

Mr. Peter Hain: The question we must ask is, why is the Bill being introduced? Is it being introduced because it will bring about greater efficiency? No. Productivity has increased by 500 per cent. since the industry was nationalised and rescued by public ownership in 1947. Let us remember that in 1947 private mine owners begged the Labour Government to take over the mines and nationalise them, as was done. Recently, productivity increases have been spectacular, so the Bill is nothing to do with efficiency.
Is the Bill being introduced to save taxpayers' money? No. If we examine its financial effects, we see that there is a continuing subsidy of at least £1 billion until the end of the century—£1 billion will be used to prop up this private industry. On top of that, the Government have provided grant aid totalling £3 billion. Also, literally billions of pounds have been spent on redundancy costs for miners who lost their jobs. The 26,000 miners who have lost their jobs since the President of the Board of Trade started to sentence the industry to death in October 1992 have cost the state £234 million in terms of unemployment benefit, lost revenue, and so on. The costs of subsidising a privatised mining regime are mounting.
There are other costs as well. Documents in the Library show that it costs £1 million a year, on average, to keep pits mothballed while awaiting privatisation. The new Coal Authority established in the Bill will not be cash-limited. That is made perfectly clear in schedule 1, which states:

The Secretary of State shall, in respect of each accounting year, pay to the Authority such amount as he may determine to be the amount required by the Authority for the carrying out during that year of its functions under this Act.
It is not cash-limited. Potentially, a large amount of money is being made available to the Coal Authority to prop up this privatised regime.
What we will see is a total cost to the taxpayer that is many times more than what the Select Committee on Trade and Industry said would be required to subsidise British Coal over a couple of years so that it could become fully competitive and compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world. Therefore, this is not about savings to the taxpayer.
Is it about a coherent energy policy? Of course not. If the coal industry is privatised, it will pursue its own narrow private interests, as the electricity industry has done since it was privatised. In turn, privatisation of the electricity industry has been responsible for the death of the coal industry over which the Government are presiding.
Privatisation of the energy industry has been responsible for the damaging effects on all our energy resources. About 15 years' worth of our precious gas reserves in the North sea oil shelf have been depleted as a result of gas-fired power stations and the dash for gas, which is totally unsuitable as a fuel for a power station base load. Our reserves have been wasted. The Government are depleting our precious natural gas reserves, which should be directed at domestic and industrial heating.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hain: No, I will not give way. Some of my hon. Friends want to speak and the hon. Gentleman has not been here for the whole evening, as many Opposition Members have.
The Bill is not about a coherent energy policy—that certainly would not come from the Government. They have allowed coal imports to rise by almost five times since 1983, from 4·5 million tonnes to 20 million tonnes a year. That is damaging to the balance of payments and causes difficulties for our economic policy.
The Bill is not about energy policy. Is it about protecting the environment? No, because one of the consequences of privatisation will be the acceleration of the dash for opencast mining at the expense of deep mining. We have seen all the destructive environmental consequences of that in recent years.
In my constituency, it is interesting to see the contrast between British Coal's applications for opencast work at Selar—one of the largest sites ever to be worked in Britain, at the top of the Neath valley—and the situation at Tower colliery, the last British Coal pit in south Wales. Tower has been slimmed down, ready for privatisation, and its production has been cut as opencast mining has been opened up. That gives some idea of the real priorities of the privatisation of coal.
The Bill is not about any of those things. It is really about giving freebies to the friends of the Government who want to set up companies to take advantage of the privatisation of coal. It is also about the long-standing vendetta of the Conservative party against the mineworkers and, in particular, their trade union. It is about the dogma that allows crucial and strategic industries which are vital to the nation's interests to be subordinated to the concerns of shareholders, rather than to act in the wider public interest.
The way it has been done is a scandal. The Government have pursued their strategy absolutely ruthlessly and have slimmed down the coal industry as a matter of deliberate policy to create a small industry for which the private sector would bid. I give the example of Blaenant, which was the last pit to close in Neath. My agent, Howard Davis, used to work there. The pit employed 600 men, and there is a familiar tale in what happened to it. For a long period, it was profitable. Then, 18 months before its closure, a new management team was brought in. That team set about destroying industrial relations and creating turmoil in the pit. It quickly slid from its profitable state to a deficit within six months of the team's taking over. That gave a good excuse for the pit to be closed.
An under-manager at Blaenant was so disgusted by what was happening that he walked off the site in disgust at his senior managers, a practice unknown in south Wales. The conditions that been created for the pit to close. How often have we heard that tale regarding pits across the country as the ruthless drive towards privatisation has been pursued?
The Bill means that we are now on the brink of one of the biggest scams of the century. The same managers who have run down the industry are now to bid for it, and they will reap the benefits as private managers and owners in a new private coal industry. The preparation for the privatisation of British Coal stinks to high heaven. We are seeing nothing short of a national scandal, where all the social costs of private mining are to be dumped on the state while the private owners skim the industry and make profits from it.
The Bill is about two things—protection of the past and planning for the future. So far as the past is concerned, I believe that the Bill does not give adequate protection for pensions, as was mentioned earlier in the debate. Representatives of the mineworkers pension scheme have made it perfectly clear that the Government have not satisfied them that they are interested in the future of miners' pensions. The issue of subsidence was addressed earlier, and that subject is treated absolutely cavalierly.
The pollution from old coal workings is also inadequately dealt with. For example, the Pellenna river, which flows through the former mining village of Tonmawr in my constituency, is a deep orange-brown colour. The river is literally disgorging into the surrounding rivers and the sea thousands, if not millions, of gallons of water which is heavily polluted with iron and sulphur. The pollution is ultimately seeping through into the water table. Lots of old mine workings are deeply polluted and there is no guarantee that the Bill will give local communities the protection that they need.
Another example was brought to light when representatives of Neath angling club approached me recently and took me down to the Neath river to show me a patch that was heavily polluted by an old Ynysarwed mine which closed in 1938. The pollution has just come' out into the Neath river. I approached the National Rivers Authority, Welsh Water and British Coal, none of which wanted to know. If British Coal does not want to know about a private pit that closed in 1938, imagine a private regime wanting to take responsibility for that. Yet that case shows that pollution from a pit that closed almost 60 years ago can suddenly come out of the ground and infect the local environment.
The Bill provides protection for neither the environment nor the many thousands of individuals and families who

have benefited over the decades from the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, the future of which is deeply threatened. A sword of Damocles hangs over it as a result of the Bill, which abolishes the Miners' Welfare Act 1952, through which CISWO was funded from within the industry. The Bill provides no alternative means of funding.
For how long will concessionary fuel continue to be provided? It is vital to the livelihood of many miners' widows and former miners' families, but it is not guaranteed in the long term.
I invite the Minister to come to my constituency, which has more private mines than any other constituency in the country. It has 36 drifts and levels employing from two to 140 men, totalling 450 miners. Ironically, that is double the number of miners now employed by British Coal in the whole of south Wales. I have strongly supported private licensed mines. I have appealed to the Welsh Office to give them grant aid and supported Ryans colliery's successful application to reopen the Vale of Neath railway line to transport coal by rail rather than clog up the roads. Under the Transport Act 1985, that mine received a grant of more than £6 million for that development.
Local private mines are an important part of the local economy, but almost all of them hark back to the turn of the century. In the past two years in my constituency, two miners have died and one narrowly escaped death and was paralysed from the waist down. Conditions are dreadful. Miners have no showers and, in Crugau colliery in particular, some are not even paid with proper payslips, which contravenes contracts under employment law. At Pentwyn colliery, miners who were working over the Christmas period according to their basic conditions of service were about to take the normal Christmas break to which they are entitled under law when the private owner simply sacked 20 of them. That is the kind of thing that will happen under privatisation.
Ponies are still used to bring the coal out of some of the collieries in my constituency. Forest colliery opposite my home in Resolven has two ponies called Amos and Prince, while Nant-y-Cafn colliery near Seven Sisters has a pony called Turbo. Pentwyn pit in Ystalyfera also has a pony. People do not believe that such conditions exist in 20th-century Britain. Those conditions of last century will come back with a vengeance if the Bill is enacted.
The safety problems in those pits are enormous. A survey by the Health and Safety Executive compares accidents in private pits with those in British Coal pits per thousand employees. A miner in a private pit is 23 times more likely to die than a British Coal miner. What reassurance can the Minister give on that? The Bill gives no reassurance. It is an exercise in going back to the future, as the finest deep-mine industry in the world is demolished, men's safety is threatened and lives are risked on the altar of the free market mania that has failed the rest of the British economy.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I shall be brief because we are at the tail end of the debate. My hon. Friends have covered many issues, including the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, Mines Rescue, pensions and the importation of coal; therefore, I shall deal with just two matters.
I have written to the Minister about the composition of the Coal Authority, which will have many powers if privatisation goes ahead. In the context of controls on opencast extradition, will it give licences to all and sundry or will that be pre-empted by the overall sale of large packets or areas of land with opencast potential? With a nod and a wink, potential buyers will get a licence anyway. Will privatisation be a bonanza for the asset strippers or cherry pickers who will concentrate only on opencast mining?
The Minister will not have the answers to those questions. We all worry about who will make decisions. I hope that they will not be made by the people who run British Coal or by ex-members of the British Coal board of management. There are qualified people in the industry and in the mining communities. Ex-miners, mines inspectors and even academics, university professors of mining, would have some credibility.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, because I have just a short time in which to make my speech and other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was giving way.

Mr. Clarke: I said no; there was a misunderstanding.
I also wrote to the Minister about coal mine abandonment plans. I do not think that he is paying attention to me. Those plans are not being left in the areas where the extradition took place. In 1950, the Coal Board was given the right to take all the abandonment plans into the relevant areas. That was because the area representatives said that it would be handy to have these working plans of exhausted mines in one area to which there was access. They were in the Edinburgh area, but they are now in Midlothian, in my constituency. However, British Coal has now gathered them all together and taken them to Bretby.
It may be useful to have all the plans under one roof, but it is difficult for a mining surveyor or a private developer, who must examine such plans before development is allowed, to have access to them. I do not want those plans to end up under the jurisdiction of Group 4 or some such organisation, because if that happened people would have to pay to look at them. Half of them would probably go missing anyway—we know what happened to prisoners. Even academics who want to study the plans would not have access to them. Perhaps the Minister will consider that point.
I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland about the matter and he said that it had to do with British Coal. That is not the case, because these plans relate to the heritage of the Scots, the Welsh, the people of the north-east and others in Britain. The plans do not belong to British Coal. They belong to the people, and people should have access to them.
Anybody who knows the technicalities will appreciate that colour slides are not good enough. We have to look at the plans carefully because their age makes the shades appear to be on top of each other. Obviously, it is a complicated and difficult plan and it is possible to find things one was not looking for. I am asking the Minister

whether the Coal Authority could be responsible for these matters and whether the position could be reversed so that the plans are sent back to Scotland or elsewhere.
Like many other people from Scotland, I feel that the Bill is a bit of a post mortem on the coal industry. A great industry has been decimated, and Conservative Members have voiced many inaccuracies today.
The miners were heroes in the first and second world wars. After the second world war, the coal industry gave up. The miners worked five-day weeks and 11-day fortnights. They produced coal for Britain and sold it to industry. They put British industry back on its feet. British Coal sold coal at a lower price. It imported United States coal and sold it at local prices to keep industry going. It could have used market forces to produce a surplus and it would not have had to take out the loans that were a millstone around its neck for many years.
I spent some time in the Library going through British Coal accounts dating back to 1979. There were many loans, and the interest on them was a millstone around the industry's neck. I know that, because every time we went to British Coal on an organised basis to negotiate wage increases, the management said that the company was not profitable because it had to pay back massive loans.
I will not bore hon. Members with the figures, but I can assure them that they go up and up. Page 8 of the NCB annual accounts for 1979–80 makes it quite clear that the national loans fund was on a 15-year term and that the borrowing was too inflexible to allow the nationalised industries to act commercially. We had blinkers, handcuffs and financial embargoes on the nationalised coal industry, which was not working properly.
Let us get the whole issue straight and put the blame where it belongs. Privatisation is a political decision, not an economic one. It is the politics and economics of madness to close down such an asset. [Interruption.] Yes, they are closing it down; it is a systematic closure. There is no argument about it. Hon. Members can go and see how many coal mines will be privatised.
Like many other people who spent their lives in the coal industry, I have nothing of which to be ashamed. It was an honest, hard-working and honourable job and the miners were the finest men I have had the honour to work beside. Many of them are retired now and remain in the communities. I am looking after their interests through the pension funds and elsewhere.
If the privatisation goes through and many other things happen, I want those people and their families to be protected.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: In the 20 months since the general election, we have had many debates on coal, and many of them have followed the same track. We have had paving legislation, announcements on closures, calls for Government action, belated and irrelevant responses from the Government and disgraceful handling of safety arrangements. Now we reach what Conservative Members will regard as the final stage—the privatisation of coal and the Government's washing their hands of the whole issue.
In the immediate aftermath of the miners' strike, the Government ceded control of the coal industry to individuals in the corporation to lick it into shape in preparation for privatisation. Some said that the shape


would consist of 12 to 14 pits employing about 10,000 men. Others wanted to sell it into private hands—perhaps their own—and have as big an industry as possible. In the event, the debate turned out to be academic, because the structure of the privatised industry was determined by the availability of cheap gas and subsidised nuclear power from France. As well as that, the electricity industry was privatised.
I seem to have been living on a different planet from Conservative Members, some of whom tell us that the privatisation of gas and electricity was the greatest piece of privatisation ever, while the other half tell us that coal should have been privatised before the other two. The Government's ceding of control and responsibility for the generation of power in this country is highly irresponsible, but that battle in many respects has been lost and we must try to make the best of a bad job.
In the period since the end of the strike, we have seen increased production, the cutting of costs and the reduction of prices in the coal industry. In the first week back at work this year, a figure of 10.26 tonnes per man shift was achieved for the first time ever. Last April, the figure stood at 8.23 tonnes per man shift. As has been pointed out, the record has been broken nine times in the past 10 months. Indeed, at Whitemoor colliery in the Selby complex, some 280 men cut 42.8 tonnes per man shift.
In the northern group alone, up to November last year, four pits were producing at less than E1 per gigajoule. In my constituency, the Longannet mine has been successful in achieving figures for price and quality that have enabled it to sign a five-year agreement with Scottish Power to take 2 million tonnes per annum from the colliery. Those are not the achievements of an industry on its knees. Those figures for cost reduction and production are not evidence of an industry that has lost its way. They are testament to effective public ownership. They are a vindication of the motives of those who nationalised the industry in the first place.
The Attlee Government nearly half a century ago saw the appalling record of the private coal owners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) pointed out to us from his personal experience of working in what are alleged to have been the glory days of private ownership of the British coal industry. We tend to forget that, in the days when it was nationalised, coal was used for heating in almost every home in the country, not merely the 2.5 million of today. It was the fuel source for our railway system and our ships. It provided the coke for the gas and steel industry. It fuelled our electricity generation.
With markets like those, it must have taken a particularly spectacular form of incompetence in the private owners not to be able to run their industry at a profit or in a manner that was safe and which afforded the work force—[Interruption.] Fifty years ago, Conservative Members were not arguing in favour of private ownership of the coal industry—they were advocating public ownership. Fifty years later, the performance of the coal industry is such that members of the Labour party—the advocates of public ownership—have nothing to be ashamed of.
There are other aspects of the coal industry. Indeed, the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) a few moments ago showed that the safety of private mines stands very bad comparison with the figures and conditions that prevail within British Coal today, especially if one considers that, in 1946, 1,000 miners a

year lost their lives. Between 1933 and 1942, the fatal accident rate was 1.3 deaths per 1,000 miners. Within the first five years of public ownership, that was halved. Today, it is now 0.13—one tenth the rate of 50 years ago.
Safety in private mines, then as now, is far worse. The accident rate is five times as bad in the private service. When we hear about the accidents in mines and about how good the record is, it nevertheless requires us to pay tribute, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did tonight, to the Mines Rescue service. Some of us remain to be convinced—we shall raise this in Committee —of that service's future. It is not a cheap operation—and it requires sacrifices not only by employees but by employers in allowing their staff time off work to attend training courses and to be available whenever a disaster occurs. There must be guarantees about the continuation of that rescue service.
Under past private ownership, low priority was given to safety, but labour relations were also deplorable. I refer not only to disputes but to the demeaning, casualised nature of employment mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck. Contractors picked and chose their men, and security of employment, holidays and even basic days off were never granted in any systematic fashion. At the end of the second world war, there were few sincere voices raised against nationalisation. The view held today is that, since the industry is small and output low, it should be left to the private sector. The message today was that it does not matter who owns the coal industry because it barely has a future and will never regain its role even in electricity regeneration.
There are, however, vast reserves of coal in the United Kingdom. Estimates range from 40-plus years to an optimistic 230 years. Whatever figure is used, it cannot be disputed that, at current European consumption levels, Britain has half Europe's coal reserves and the cheapest deep-mined coal in the European Union. That point was made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who mentioned the possibility of exporting United Kingdom coal to the European Union.
Perhaps it would be more sensible to make an arrangement with the French whereby they conceded third party status and we could use the interconnector to export British-generated electricity to Italy and Germany. That would be a more satisfactory way of using our surplus coal supplies. However, there is broad agreement across the House that the United Kingdom must make use of its reserves.
We all agree also that security of energy supplies will depend on a variety of fuels, and that the organisation of that portfolio will depend on proper investment levels being sustained. The danger inherent in a small coal industry under several owners is that there is likely to be insufficient critical mass to sustain the industry.
We have already seen the impact on the mining machinery industry of the decline in the home market, which has severely prejudiced the prospects of companies in that sector competing in the international market for mining equipment. A small, privately owned industry would have great difficulty supporting research and development.
Will the Minister for Energy indicate Government thinking on the coal research establishment, which is partly funded by European money in the form of the return of part of the levy on coal produced in this country? It would be ridiculous if the price of British coal were to reflect a levy


from which this country cannot benefit. The CRC is not mentioned in the Bill, but it ought to be considered. It is one of the main coal industry research bodies in the world, producing valuable research for not only the United Kingdom and Europe but companies worldwide. It is essential to the industry's long-term future that the centre is protected.
The prospect of a small, privatised coal industry has attracted little interest from international companies with the resources to fund research and development. It is feared that the private operators who are interested in entering the business will be too small or too heavily indebted to have the resources for research and development, and will merely pursue short-term profit by rape and pillage.
Hon. Members have asked about pay and conditions, safety and related procedures. No doubt we shall return to those matters in Committee and on Report. The Bill's implications for existing employees are, however, almost overtaken by the scale of the responsibilities to be shouldered by the Coal Authority and future owners. As drafted, the Bill gives little comfort to pensioners. Some members of the latest group of former workers have already been exposed to unscrupulous insurance salesmen, who have encouraged them to contract out of the industry and adopt other pension schemes.
The Bill does nothing to resolve disputes with trustees about the disposal of surpluses, especially in the staff scheme. The assurances that have been given have not allayed the anxieties of existing staff about the safety of their contributions. If the Government are not prepared to guarantee future employment or redundancy arrangements, surely they can promise to protect the pensions of the existing work force from unscrupulous private owners.
An integral part of a mining pensioner's package is the concessionary coal scheme, but no one is yet convinced of the Government's present and continuing commitment to that scheme. I understand that the Minister answered a question about it yesterday. The matter will be scrutinised closely if and when the Bill enters its Committee stage; I do not think that a one-paragraph answer was sufficient to allay any of our fears.
Those who do not know the industry and the communities that depend on it do not realise the significance of the concessionary coal scheme. It is worth between £650 and £850 a year to the 160,000 people who receive coal and smokeless fuel, and some £270 a year to the 40,000 who receive cash in lieu. The scheme costs about £150 million a year. A number of my hon. Friends have referred to the blatant attempt to buy out that entitlement, and the failure to spell out tax implications of such deals to the elderly pensioners involved. The unscrupulous approach adopted by some parts of British Coal in its attempt to shed the burden must be scrutinised far more closely. I hope that the Minister will at least begin to consider that aspect this evening.
Such problems affect all hon. Members with former miners in their constituencies. Because of the degree of interdependence in mining, and the failure of private owners and the social welfare system to look after the needy, miners have been required to provide for themselves in the past.

Mr. Etherington: Is it not incredible that the President of the Board of Trade did not refer once to the Coal

Industry Social Welfare Organisation? In 1921, following the report of the Sankey commission, the Government of the day introduced legislation that placed a levy on tonnage; that levy was worth more than the Coal Board is paying now. Is it not almost beyond belief that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention such an important aspect of the matter?

Mr. O'Neill: Having been in the House for 15 years, I am no longer surprised by anything that the President of the Board of Trade says or does not say. It is significant, however, that in 1952 the incoming Conservative Government—on the back of coal nationalisation—introduced the Miners' Welfare Bill, which created the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation as we know it today. It plays an invaluable part in the lives of communities associated with the mining industry. Apart from the welfare institutions and the clubs, its regional system of social workers complements the social services. [Interruption.] Conservative Members who think that this is amusing should remember that, when the House faces further public expenditure cuts, it will be to voluntary organisations such as CISWO that people will have to turn in increasing numbers for the support that the social services, deprived of funds, cannot provide.
It has been suggested that in the next 25 years about half a million people will need the services of CISWO. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Minister to mention CISWO, even if the President of the Board of Trade does not consider it important enough to be included in his speech.
CISWO and British Coal Enterprise deserve a mention. Neither of them features anywhere in the Bill. Some of us have been sceptical about the contribution made by British Coal Enterprise, but we know that it has a loan fund of £50 million and a cumulative total of some £75 million in loans and grants. We do not want them to be jeopardised because we recognise that the level of unemployment in our areas is such that any help that we can get is welcome.
The Bill does not affect only individuals and the economies of the coalfield communities. Repeated reference has been made to the environmental consequences of mining. There has been discussion of the implications of stopping pumping in the north-east and Wales. There has been discussion of the significance of opencast mining and its irrelevance when we consider the importance of securing markets for deep-mined coal.
The Bill leaves many questions unanswered. We have yet to know the size of the industry that the Government propose to privatise. We do not know how many collieries will remain. We do not know whether proper security will be provided for the pensions and working arrangements of the people who will be left in the industry. But we know that the Government want to get shot of the industry. Indeed, when Lord Parkinson spoke in 1992 in the wake of the pit closures announcement, he made it clear that the closures were more about marking off the scores of the 1974 strike, which brought down the then Tory Government, than about a proper energy policy for Britain.
The Bill is not about a coal industry of the future. It is about a Conservative Government's revenge. The privatised remains of the coal industry, with contracts with the electricity generators of only three years, will not be attractive to the Peabodys or RTZs of this world. It could appeal only to companies such as Budge which operate rates of £3·50 an hour for a 10-hour day—a cut of 31 per


cent. in wages. That is what is being offered at the Clipstone mine. It could appeal only to those who operate under safety regulations which will be bereft of the contribution of the mining deputy and in which safety will be paramount only so long as it is practicable to make it so.
Following privatisation, at the end of the contract, when the bankers and the men from the City have walked away with their profits, all that will be left will be the coal miners of this country, the vast reserves of coal and, if we are lucky, supplies of over-priced gas. And there will be one more thing, Madam Speaker there will be a Labour Government mindful of their responsibility to provide a national energy policy in which the public sector will once again play its part. Until then, we must oppose the Bill. If we are defeated tonight, we must fight for changes in the Bill to protect miners, their families, the environment and the energy supplies of this country. I urge all those who believe that there is a future for coal to join us in the Lobby tonight to keep the nation's resources in the hands of the people.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): We have had a good debate, with 25 hon. Members speaking, and I shall do my best to answer as many of their questions as possible. Without wishing to offend my hon. Friends and Opposition Members, may I say that my image of the debate is of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He was in fine form.

Mr. Stuart Bell: It was a good speech.

Mr. Eggar: Yes. He reminded us that the Nye Bevan wing of the Labour party is still alive—just. His speech was fascinating. He did not speak to the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Skinner: There was no one there.

Mr. Eggar: He did not talk to the mining group of Labour Members of Parliament. No, he spoke directly to the Labour Front Bench and made an impassioned plea for the Labour party to prepare for government—but by doing what? By renationalising the British coal industry. The battle that he was fighting was not with his mining friends but with his Front Bench.
What was the best answer that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) could come up with in response to that speech? He said, "Well, we might have a little bit of public sector involvement in the coal industry if we ever happen to get back into power." That was the best contribution that the Opposition spokesman could give the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Bolsover has a lot more work to do and I am delighted that he has some colleagues on his side, such as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). I am not sure about the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings)—I am not even sure about me —but I am looking forward to the battle developing on the Labour Benches in Committee.
I must begin by picking up on some of the comments about the safety regime.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back 10 years, when we should have introduced this Bill but did not do so because there would

have been a synthetic national strike by all those companies and businesses that had been denationalised and which now realise that the miners are coming in too late?

Mr. Eggar: I agree. One of the tragedies that has befallen the mining industry is the way in which labour relations and the attitude of the Opposition have meant that the safety regime has come later to the private sector than to other parts of the energy industry.
I recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about safety issues. My right hon. Friend the President and I are absolutely determined that privatisation will not lead to a reduction in safety standards. Modern mining practice, new technology and a tough regulatory framework will ensure that the industry's safety record continues to be excellent.
I repeat that safety is, and will remain, the Government's paramount concern as we go through the privatisation process. No Conservative Member and no member of the Government will countenance any proposal that puts safety standards at risk. We therefore sought the advice of the Health and Safety Commission. That is why I announced in October that we would accept all the recommendations that the commission has made to us as we move towards privatisation.

Mr. Hardy: If the Minister is as concerned as he says —we shall no doubt explore that in Committee—will he explain why the Government allowed the phrase
as far as may be practicable
to be repeated in almost every page of the new regulations governing safety in mines? Does he accept that the repetition of that phrase causes enormous dismay and deepening anxiety in the mining industry because it obviously provides a let-out clause for every sharp practice that may occur?

Mr. Eggar: I utterly reject the hon. Gentleman's assertion. He knows perfectly well that the document to which he refers, the management and administration of safety and health at mines package, was put together by the Health and Safety Commission, which is a tripartite organisation and which, although I know that it was opposed by the union by which the hon. Gentleman is sponsored and with which he is associated, has generally been welcomed by other entities involved in safety.

Mr. Martin Redmond: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
Several hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Clackmannan, have mentioned the mines rescue service. Having met some of the people who were associated with the work at the Bilsthorpe pit after the tragic accident there, I recognise that this is an important matter. The Health and Safety Commission has said that it intends to submit new regulations to the Secretary of State for Employment as soon as possible and extensive consultation will follow from that. That has already started.
The Health and Safety Commission's report states that a national rescue service, jointly operated by mine owners, appears to be the best way of meeting the fundamental rescue objectives after privatisation. I will take full account of that report when advancing our proposals for the industry.
A number of my hon. Friends and hon. Members have mentioned the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover and others that CISWO plays an important role. As I think has been recognised by the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), I have been in discussion with CISWO's trustees and executives, as have my officials. I intend to carry forward those discussions. I recognise the importance of the areas of activity that were identified by the hon. Member for Bolsover, and I will make proposals in due course.

Mr. O'Neill: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, because I am trying to respond to several points that were made in the debate.
Several hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and for Doncaster, North, mentioned the future of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. BCE's job creation activities will continue throughout the privatisation of British Coal and the Government will continue to support the funding of BCE's operations.

Mr. O'Neill: rose

Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. He did not leave me a lot of time.
My hon. Friends the Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned the possibility of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and, connected with that, the possibility of the disposal of power stations by the generators. As I think the House knows, the Director General of Electricity Supply is considering all those issues. It is for him to seek agreement with the generators or to recommend a reference to the MMC, and we await his recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme mentioned flue gas desulphurisation fitting, specifically at Ferrybridge power station. I think that he is aware that we have given section 36 consent for work on FGD fitting to take place and, as the company knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has the power to direct Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to require the fitting of FGD in a specific case if he and the inspectorate consider it appropriate.

Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State will indeed use those powers of direction?

Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend will obviously need to consider the issue. The stance that the generator concerned will take is not yet clear. I was pointing out to my hon. Friend that the powers are there.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) mentioned Alcan and the ownership of land around the Alcan plant. I know that the company is concerned about that matter. As he knows, I will visit the plant and hold discussions with management, and I am sure that that subject will come up.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet mentioned compulsory rights orders. We fully intend that procedures for compulsory access should be matters of the last resort. We are conscious of the need to balance the

interest of the landowners and the need for compulsory access during what we recognise, under the terms of the Bill, is a temporary period of about five years.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan asked about the future of the coal research establishment and research and development funding. The Government are committed to expanding funding for clean coal technology. That was made clear in the White Paper, and the CRE is currently involved in many joint projects. We are aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised about European funding, and we shall work closely with the CRE and with British Coal to find a way forward for that organisation.
Several of my hon. Friends, and Opposition Members too, asked about consultation on mineral planning guidance 3, and the relationship between that document and the compulsory rights orders. Of course, we are in consultation now on MPG3, and I shall ensure that the comments of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members on opencast mining are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
My hon. Friends the Members for Elmet and for Davyhulme asked about compensation claims for industrial diseases when employees transfer to private sector purchasers. I assure them that what they have said, both during the debate and previously, has been taken on board and that we are examining those matters closely.
Many hon. Members asked about pensions. The Government are determined to guarantee existing pension arrangements, and we also guarantee index linking. We have made it clear that beneficiaries should be able to benefit from any surplus on a 50:50 basis. We are taking part in discussions and shall shortly enter further discussions with the trustees about the balance between protecting the interests of taxpayers and protecting those of beneficiaries. I look forward to the discussion in Committee on concessionary fuel. As I said, we made an announcement following the consultations.
Tonight we have heard the usual arguments from Labour Members. Yet again the Labour party seems to be bound to fail to recognise the realities that face the coal industry and the fact that the best hope for its future lies in the private sector. The hon. Members for Livingston and for Clackmannan both brought up the myth that the Conservative party supported the nationalisation of coal in 1946. I went back to the Hansard report of the debate, so let me tell the House what Mr. Eden said at the time:
What this Bill proposes to do is to set up a State monopoly for the production of coal, and that is all. Are hon. Members opposite"—
Labour Members—
really certain that the bulk of their supporters are enthusiastic for such a monopoly; and are they sure that the evils of monopoly disappear, once it comes under the aegis of the State?"—[Official Report, 29 January 1946; Vol. 418, c. 718.]
Winding up for the Conservatives, Mr. Macmillan said —[Interruption.] Labour Members should listen; Mr. Macmillan said:
What about the relations between the National Union of Mineworkers and the Socialist machine? That is more than a friendship. It is a marriage which I am sure Transport House will be careful never to dissolve so long as the sums under the marriage settlement are regularly and punctually paid, whether they are voluntarily subscribed or compulsorily extorted."—[Official Report, 30 January 1946; Vol. 418, c. 958.]
Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Eden got it right. The history of the British coal industry has been bedevilled by that incestuous relationship between the National Union of


Mineworkers and the Labour party. Even now Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen cannot shake off the shackles of that relationship.
Over the past 18 months or so, there has been an intense debate in the House and elsewhere about the future of our energy industries in general, and of the coal industry in particular. Many organisations have put forward their views in a constructive way. Most noticeable was the thorough and helpful report from the Trade and Industry Select Committee. We are also grateful to those who responded on the issues of pensions and concessionary fuel.
Throughout that time, there has been one voice missing from the debate. We have not had a single constructive idea, not a single policy, not a single commitment from Labour party. We are told by the press that the Labour party is now being pulled, kicking and screaming, into the late 20th century. When will the Labour party have the guts to say anything positive at all on energy? There are those who say that it is fear that stops the Labour party from coming out with its views on energy. It is fear, some say, of the hon. Member for Bolsover. It is fear, others say, of a union leader whose union has not negotiated with management on a single issue since 1984.

Mr. Hood: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Eggar: The union's, I suggest. Listen. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the ex-Leader of the Opposition, had it in for him. He summoned the courage in June to tell David Frost just what he thought of Mr. Scargill. The Independent headline heralded, "Kinnock says Scargill to blame over pit closures." The right hon. Gentleman said:
The way in which his part in the leadership of the NUM conducted the argument did ensure, in my view, first of all that the prophecy of massive mine closures came true".
The 'question that the Labour party must answer is., if the Leader of the Opposition could say that in June 1993, where was such a statement during the strike of 1984–85? Why did not the Labour party make obvious then the position that was made obvious nine years later? Why did not it say something when it really mattered during that strike? The hon. Member for Bolsover may not have liked it, but perhaps the mining industry would have benefited from it.
Perhaps I am being too harsh. perhaps it is not mere fear from which Opposition Front Benchers suffer, but stubbornness. Perhaps the Labour party and the hon. Member for Livingston recognise the overriding advantage of a market-based energy policy but are simply too stubborn to admit it, are too stubborn to own up to it and are too stubborn to acknowledge the success that privatisation and competition have brought to other industries. Perhaps they are too stuck in the past and too stubborn to concede that the private sector offers the best and the only chance for coal.
I must give the hon. Member for Livingston his due. He did once have a definite view. He published a policy called "No Nukes", which stated that nuclear power was unneeded and uneconomic. That was in 1981. He once had a policy back in those heady days of 1981—but not now. He has not answered any of the questions that we have put to him from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Robin Cook: rose—

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman must wait. I shall give him plenty of chance to answer once I have asked the questions. No, I am not giving way.

Mr. Cook: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way. Is that right?

Mr. Eggar: Absolutely not. I will not give the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Cook: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not persist if the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Cook: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may not be about a ruling of the Chair, but if it is the case that I should not rise when the Minister will not give way, the Minister should not ask questions and not be willing to face the answer to them.

Mr. Eggar: I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have asked him a number of questions, going back debate after debate, and he has failed to answer a single question.

Mr. Cook: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: I will give way, but let me ask my questions. I want the answers to them. This is my—

Mr. Cook: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) knows not to persist. The Minister is not giving way, apparently.

Mr. Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Eggar: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening to a point of order.

Mr. Cook: The Minister distinctly said that he was willing to give way. That is why I rose again.

Mr. Eggar: I want answers to my questions. Is the Labour party going to pour taxpayers' money into keeping uneconomic pits open? Is it committed to renationalisation? Privatisation is the way forward.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 282.

Division No. 74]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baldry, Tony


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arbuthnot, James
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bellingham, Henry


Ashby, David
Bendall, Vivian


Aspinwall, Jack
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkins, Robert
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Blackburn, Dr John G.






Body, Sir Richard
Fry, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Booth, Hartley
Gallie, Phil


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burns, Simon
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Peter
Hague, William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Churchill, Mr
Haselhurst, Alan


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Coe, Sebastian
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Congdon, David
Hendry, Charles


Conway, Derek
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cormack, Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkin, Bernard


Dover, Den
Jessel, Toby


Duncan, Alan
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Elletson, Harold
Kilfedder, Sir James


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Faber, David
Knox, Sir David


Fabricant, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fishburn, Dudley
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Forman, Nigel
Legg, Barry


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leigh, Edward


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lidington, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


French, Douglas
Luff, Peter





MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maclean, David
Shersby, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Madel, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Major, Rt Hon John
Soames, Nicholas


Malone, Gerald
Speed, Sir Keith


Mans, Keith
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spink, Dr Robert


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spring, Richard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sproat, Iain


Mates, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony


Merchant, Piers
Stephen, Michael


Milligan, Stephen
Stern, Michael


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Allan


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sumberg, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Sweeney, Walter


Monro, Sir Hector
Sykes, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Needham, Richard
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Norris, Steve
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Ottaway, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Patnick, Irvine
Trotter, Neville


Patten, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pickles, Eric
Walden, George


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waterson, Nigel


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Ronton, Rt Hon Tim
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Richards, Rod
Whitney, Ray


Riddick, Graham
Whittingdale, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Tom
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ashton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Austin-Walker, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Allen, Graham
Barnes, Harry


Alton, David
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Battle, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bayley, Hugh


Armstrong, Hilary
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret






Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Garrett, John


Bell, Stuart
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bermingham, Gerald
Godsiff, Roger


Berry, Dr. Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Betts, Clive
Gordon, Mildred


Blair, Tony
Gould, Bryan


Blunkett, David
Graham, Thomas


Boateng, Paul
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gunnell, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hain, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hall, Mike


Burden, Richard
Hanson, David


Byers, Stephen
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Heppell, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Canavan, Dennis
Hinchliffe, David


Cann, Jamie
Hoey, Kate


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Home Robertson, John


Clapham, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clelland, David
Hoyle, Doug


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hutton, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ingram, Adam


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cousins, Jim
Jamieson, David


Cox, Tom
Janner, Greville


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cummings, John
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davidson, Ian
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Denham, John
Khabra, Piara S.


Dewar, Donald
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dixon, Don
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dobson, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Donohoe, Brian H.
Leighton, Ron


Dowd, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lewis, Terry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Litherland, Robert


Eagle, Ms Angela
Livingstone, Ken


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Enright, Derek
Llwyd, Elfyn


Etherington, Bill
Lynne, Ms Liz


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAllion, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatchett, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, Calum


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McFall, John


Fisher, Mark
McKelvey, William


Flynn, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maclennan, Robert


Foulkes, George
McMaster, Gordon


Fraser, John
McNamara, Kevin


Fyfe, Maria
McWilliam, John


Galbraith, Sam
Madden, Max


Gapes, Mike
Maddock, Mrs Diana





Mahon, Alice
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Mandelson, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Marek, Dr John
Rooker, Jeff


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rooney, Terry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Rowlands, Ted


Martlew, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Maxton, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michael, Alun
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Short, Clare


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Simpson, Alan


Milburn, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morley, Elliot
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spellar, John


Mowlam, Marjorie
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mudie, George
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Stevenson, George


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Straw, Jack


O'Hara, Edward
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Olner, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Neill, Martin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tipping, Paddy


Parry, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Patchett, Terry
Tyler, Paul


Pendry, Tom
Vaz, Keith


Pickthall, Colin
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pike, Peter L.
Walley, Joan


Pope, Greg
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Watson, Mike


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prescott, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Wise, Audrey


Raynsford, Nick
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Reid, Dr John
Wright, Dr Tony


Rendel, David



Richardson, Jo
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Coal Industry Bill [Ways and Means] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick]

The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 278.

Division No. 75]
[10.17 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Ashby, David
Bates, Michael






Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Bellingnam, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Fry, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Booth, Hartley
Gallie, Phil


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burns, Simon
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butcher, John
Hague, William


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, Mr
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Coe, Sebastian
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Congdon, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dicks, Terry
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, Sir James


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Elletson, Harold
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knox, Sir David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbairn Sir Nicholas
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Legg, Barry


Fishburn, Dudley
Leigh, Edward


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)





Lidington, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luff, Peter
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soames, Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MarLand, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Martow, Tony
Spink, Dr Robert


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spring, Richard


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sproat, Iain


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mates, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Steen, Anthony


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stephen, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stern, Michael


Milligan, Stephen
Stewart, Allan


Mills, Iain
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sweeney, Walter


Moate, Sir Roger
Sykes, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thomason, Roy


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Ward, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Richards, Rod
Whittingdale, John


Riddick, Graham
Widdecombe, Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robathan, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sackville, Tom



Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Hilary


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Ainger, Nick
Ashton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)
Austin-Walker, John


Allen, Graham
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Alton, David
Barnes, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Battle, John






Bayley, Hugh
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Faulds, Andrew


Bell, Stuart
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, Andrew F.
Flynn, Paul


Benton, Joe
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Don (Bath)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Foulkes, George


Betts, Clive
Fraser, John


Blair, Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Blunkett, David
Galbraith, Sam


Boateng, Paul
Gapes, Mike


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, John


Bradley, Keith
George, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godsiff, Roger


Burden, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Stephen
Gordon, Mildred


Caborn, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gunnell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hain, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hall, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Harvey, Nick


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Doug


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Darling, Alistair
Hutton, John


Davidson, Ian
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jamieson, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Janner, Greville


Denham, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dixon, Don
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jowell, Tessa


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eastham, Ken
Keen, Alan


Enright, Derek
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Etherington, Bill
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Khabra, Piara S.





Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Purchase, Ken


Leighton, Ron
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry
Randall, Stuart


Litherland, Robert
Raynsford, Nick


Livingstone, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Reid, Dr John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rendel, David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Richardson, Jo


McAllion, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McCartney, Ian
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Macdonald, Calum
Rogers, Allan


McFall, John
Rooker, Jeff


McKelvey, William
Rooney, Terry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McLeish, Henry
Rowlands, Ted


Maclennan, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


McMaster, Gordon
Salmond, Alex


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Short, Clare


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Simpson, Alan


Mahon, Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Snape, Peter


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Spellar, John


Michael, Alun
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Milburn, Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Straw, Jack


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Turner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Tyler, Paul


Mudie, George
Vaz, Keith


Mullin, Chris
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Murphy, Paul
Walley, Joan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Watson, Mike


O'Hara, Edward
Wicks, Malcolm


Olner, William
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Brian


Patchett, Terry
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Wise, Audrey


Pickthall, Colin
Worthington, Tony


Pike, Peter L.
Wray, Jimmy


Pope, Greg
Wright, Dr Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Prescott, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Coal Industry Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the following, namely—

(a) sums required by the Secretary of State for paying to the Coal Authority established by the Act amounts required by that Authority for carrying out its functions;
(b) expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in consequence of provision made by the Act for the acquisition of, or of rights to subscribe for, securities of successor companies;
(c) sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to the British Coal Corporation and to successor companies which are wholly owned by the Crown;
(d) sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments for purposes connected with the supply pf concessionary coal and the payment of sums in lieu of concessionary coal;
(e) sums required by the Secretary of State for making any payment of compensation for loss of office—

(i) to a person who ceases to hold office as a chairman or member of the Corporation, or
(ii) to the person who is the chairman of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council when it ceases to exist;
(f) sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments in pursuance of arrangements entered into by him for securing that the assets of an existing pension scheme are sufficient for meeting pension obligations arising under the scheme;
(g) administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Treasury in consequence of the provisions of the Act;
(h) sums required by any Minister of the Crown or Government department for meeting obligations arising in consequence of that Minister or department becoming entitled or subject, in accordance with a scheme under the Act, to any property, rights or liabilities;
(i) increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act;

(2) the extinguishment of liabilities of the British Coal Corporation in respect of—

(a) sums lent to that Corporation out of money provided by Parliament;
(b) sums which are to be taken as having been so lent; and
(c) interest in respect of any such sums;

(3) the issuing out of the National Loans Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for making loans to a successor company at a time when it is wholly owned by the Crown;

(4) the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling such guarantees given by them for the discharge of financial obligations in connection with sums borrowed by a successor company as are given in respect of such a company at a time when it is wholly owned by the Crown.

In this Resolution "successor company" means any company to whom property, rights or liabilities of the British Coal Corporation or any of its wholly-owned subsidiaries are transferred in accordance with a scheme under the Act and at a time when the company is wholly owned by the Crown.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Derek Enright: One has only to read the money resolution to realise what is wrong with the privatisation of the coal industry. The Government need not look far beyond the end of their noses—if, indeed, they need to look that far.
We need to take a long-term view of our energy needs. We should not consider coal, electricity, nuclear power or gas in isolation, but should take account of our long-term

energy needs in their entirety. That is very far from what is suggested in the resolution. Britain requires an integrated energy policy. [Interruption.]
I was silent for a moment to give Government Front-Benchers a little time to cool down so that they can prepare themselves to listen to my important words, just in case they believe that they are able to reply to the strength of our arguments.
One of the most important questions is whether Government Front Benchers can cite any specialist from the energy world who says anything other than that, by the turn of the century, coal will once again be the main source of energy. Even if they cannot do so, the fact remains that the resolution would mean the running down of our coal resources. In other words, by the turn of the century we shall have made ourselves utterly dependent on foreign resources for our energy needs.
Such a situation is dangerous but not untypical of what is happening at the moment, or of the Government's policy. It is why, for example, we lost the race for the European bank. We lost the race because of our absurdities and our ridiculous posture on Maastricht. We also lost because London is a short-term financial sector, whereas Frankfurt has always made it clear that it is a long-term financial centre. Our continental partners rightly chose Frankfurt as the location for the bank, and their decision was important. That is not merely symbolic but at the heart of the Government's failure to take this country into the next century.
As many of my hon. Friends want to speak, I will briefly examine different aspects of Government policy. The gas industry was most unwilling to provide the electricity supply industry. That was the last thing it wanted, but it was prepared to make that provision at what it said was a commercial price. I thought that we had freed gas to operate in the marketplace, but a money resolution made the gas industry sell its product below the market price.
The money resolution before the House will sell off the coal industry to a company with remarkably limited objectives, which cannot possibly pursue what is really needed in energy policy.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: One problem with private coal mines is that they can rarely restore the environment properly at the end of their operations. Does my hon. Friend believe that the money resolution makes adequate provision to ensure adequate environmental restoration to British Coal standards?

Mr. Enright: That would be possible, if the motion contained a single enabling factor giving the companies the money and powers to restore clapped-out coal mines—of which there are many in my constituency—to their previous state.
The resolution provides no guarantee in respect of small social factors that still count in the local environment. It takes no account, for example, of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. The senior and junior Frickley bands really go back to basics, to coin a phrase. Those institutions take young people off the streets and give them something worth while to do, education and culture, and are enduring. I think also of Frickley Amateur Athletic, which is at the heart of football in that area.
How much money would be needed to keep two bands going? Remarkably little. I am sorry that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not present. I also expected his


Parliamentary Private Secretary—the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth)—to be present in support of his boss. The hon. Member of City of Chester had enough money given to his company, Unicorn Heritage, to support a football team and two bands into the next century.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not try my patience too much. The money resolution does not go as wide as the hon. Gentleman might want, and I ask him to confine his remarks to the motion.

Mr. Enright: My complaint is that the money resolution does not cater for functions previously performed by British Coal in respect of bands, football teams, athletics, social welfare and pensions. It was apparently very easy for another Department to provide money that could be thrown down the drain and allow companies to go bankrupt. That money would have enabled two bands and one football team to continue for not 50 but 250 years, on the basis of the average amount that is currently given by British Coal as subvention, and should be given by the new body that is being established.
It is scandalous that two hon. Members who are so closely associated with the motion do not see fit to give that money to my people in Frickley, who have suffered directly as a result of the Bill and the motion. There is no doubt that people in South Elmsall, South Kirby, Hemsworth, Featherstone and Havercroft have suffered particularly from the restrictions imposed by the inadequate creature that we are discussing.
I feel very strongly about what the Government are doing. In their rush towards a crazed nationalisation that they have not justified—I appreciate that I cannot discuss it on this motion—they have taken no account of the lives that they have tossed aside, especially in constituencies such as mine. The smirking of public school Conservative Members is intolerable. I am not referring to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology; I applaud his jolly nice secondary modern-school background. I am referring to the Minister for Energy, whose school motto is "Manners makyth man".

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have that in Latin?

Mr. Harry Barnes: Or Greek.

Mr. Enright: "Manners makyth man" is the actual wording of the motto. It does not translate into Latin or Greek; it is the creation of a good and eminent English writer.
The Minister displayed none of the virtues associated with "Manners makyth man". It means consideration for ordinary people—not just those who can take the money and make the profit, which is what the motion is all about, with no thought of protecting the five sites in my constituency—the only five green field sites—that will be opencast. Following the erection of the filthy muckstacks, we now have the craters; but we do not even have the consolation of seeing moon men land on them. We may have the consolation of seeing the junior Minister open those sites, but I warn him that that would be a dangerous task to undertake.
Another important aspect has not been dealt with properly. I refer to the scientific research undertaken by British Coal. It was very successful, relying on a tradition

going back to Dr. Bronowski—who, although much maligned by the Daily Express, did superb work for British Coal very early on. The work on clean-coal technology, particularly that done at Grimethorpe, was a wonder, marvelled at by the rest of the world. The rest of the world bought it, and was grateful for it. What mention is it given in the motion? None at all.
There is a simple reason. British Coal closed down Grimethorpe. The reason why Grimethorpe was closed down was simple: it was successful. It was going to show how one could use coal effectively and cleanly. That technology was thrown away. The people who will benefit are the Swedes and the French. That shows precisely why we cannot trust energy policy to the Government, and why this pathetic creature that is called a money resolution will not and should not survive. It should be beaten. I urge the House to throw it out as the puny creature that it is.

Mr. Stuart Bell: It is always a pleasure, even a joy, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). We felt at one stage that he was about to use a Latin phrase when he said, "Manners makyth man". When he was describing the Minister of State, I thought that he was going to say, "Profits makyth man" because to the Government profits are more important than manners. We have got used to that over the years.
I am glad to say that my hon. Friend excluded the Under-Secretary from the accusation of having a public school background. We all looked at my hon. Friend aghast, if that is the right word, when he seemed about to suggest that the former miner about whom we have heard so much, who has come such a long way from the Back Benches to the Front Benches and who will take the Bill through Committee, went to public school. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth pulled back and listed him as a former pupil of a secondary modern. I can feel a little superior, having gone to a grammar school; I got through the 11-plus.
I shall come back to the money resolution, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that it pleases your heart enormously that we stay on the script, the programme and the resolution before us.
We heard a lot today from the President of the Board of Trade in the first instance about a £20,000 million investment in the coal industry since 1979. Our figures alshow £12,000 million investment in deep mining since 1974. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) said in an intervention that £8,000 million of that had gone into machinery. The question was asked in a sedentary intervention on our side how much of that had gone into redundancy. How much of that money was not investment but redundancy money to pay off the miners, get them out of the pits and soften up the industry?
When the President of the Board of Trade referred to the figure of £20,000 million, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) intervened to ask how, if that investment had been made in the coal mining industry, the Government could walk away from collieries and leave them in a state of desuetude—if, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth, I may use a word that comes from the Latin. How could they leave them to flood? How could they invest so much money in plant and machinery arid walk away from it?
The money resolution, the financial obligations in the resolution and the financial memorandum, which is part of the Bill, are not about money. They are about ideology. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who was so highly praised by Lord Lawson in his autobiography—Lord Lawson enjoyed his interventions —was right to say that the Bill and the money resolution are more to do with ideology than money.
If we were debating tonight the sale of British Petroleum shares, to add to the Government's piggy bank, we could say at least that there was merit in the Bill. If we were debating the sale of other assets of the state which Lord Stockton, to whom the Minister of State referred, called the family heirlooms or jewels—assets that would bring money into the coffers of the state and reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, we could say that at least there was merit in the Bill. There is no merit in the Bill or the money resolution, because the legislation is ideological.
The President of the Board of Trade said that privatisation of the coal industry was in the manifesto, and that the Government had a mandate for it. What we say is this: we had a mandate in 1945 and nothing has given this, or any, Conservative Government the right to reverse the mandates of previous Governments and take us back to a past that we heard about from my hon. Friends. The Minister does not need to grimace. He can intervene later if he wishes.
The mandate that the Government are trying to reverse is our mandate from many years ago, and they are doing so on ideological grounds. The financial memorandum to the Bill mentions the sum of about £70 million in respect to concessionary fuel for former British Coal employees. We believe that the figure should be £150 million.
On pensions, the memorandum states:
The capital values of these liabilities are not expected to exceed £400 million and £45 million respectively.
A whole host of financial obligations will reduce the impact of the privatisation and show that the Bill is ideologically and politically correct from the Government's point of view, but has no merit in financial terms.
The money resolution is part of the sham of the Bill, which has nothing to do with raising money.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he look at paragraph (4) of the resolution regarding the sums required for the purposes of providing a pension guarantee? My hon. Friend is probably more of an expert than I in that area.
If there is an average retail price index of 4 or 4·5 per cent., in five out of every six years the pension fund could be expected to provide a surplus far in excess of the RPI. We have heard little from the Government today, or in the preceding weeks, but they are minded to take half the surplus of the pension fund. If that is the case, will my hon. Friend invite the Minister to tell us what the Government expect sub-paragraph (f) to cost and what they expect to get from their share of the miners pension fund during the next 10 or 12 years?

Mr. Bell: I thank my hon. Friend for intervening in that way. I and other hon. Members in the House appreciated his moving account of the vesting day of 1947 when he gave his first speech, as I also remember that day. We

remember the great relief felt throughout the mining communities that the coal owners had gone. There was a blue flag on the masthead of our colliery and a cartoon at the time said, "Never come back." That message was directed to the coal owners. Opposition spokesmen stand at this Dispatch Box today with some sadness, with Members of Parliament for mining constituencies all around us, knowing that the coal owners will come back.
The President of the Board of Trade said that nationalisation had been a failure. It was Conservative Governments' refusal to accept it and to change the management of British Coal—in some cases, their activities were worse than the coal owners of old—that was the failure. That conspiracy between the National Coal Board, as it was then, and Conservative Governments has undone the mining industry.
To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), that matter is a part of my speech. The financial memorandum contains this phrase:
The Bill provides, in return for the guarantee, for surplus assets in the modified schemes to be available to the Secretary of State"—
who is acting in the guise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury.
The President of the Board of Trade and the Minister, when he summed up, referred to the interests of taxpayers, but they have no interest in pension funds that were built up by mine workers over many years. We shall point that out in Committee, as we have done on the Floor of the House.
I know that other colleagues want to speak in the debate, which is important, so I shall be brief. The money resolution touches on many issues. I referred to pensions, and we have spoken to the trustees of the pension funds, who are not entirely happy with the Government's approach. They are also not entirely happy that the Minister wishes to appoint and dismiss members of the board and to handle the fund's surplus.
The Minister of State, in his usual glib fashion, was saying from the Dispatch Box that there would be all types of guarantees for people in the pension fund; there would be index-linked pensions and guarantees. Then he mentioned a 50:50 split of the surplus. We shall examine those matters carefully as we go along, when we consider the financial memorandum and the money resolution before the House.
Many of our colleagues spoke about water from the mines, especially in the north-east of England—the environmental liabilities. Where are the environmental liabilities in the money resolution and the financial memorandum? We shall consider that serious—as we see it—issue of pollution in the north, and the complications that that will pose for the privatisation of the industry. That is another subject to which we shall return with the Minister—I understand that he will serve on the Committee with us and that he will work with us in Committee.
Concessionary coal has also been mentioned. I mentioned earlier the reference in the financial memorandum to the sum of £70 million. We believe that £150 million is involved, and we say that the current proposals on the table fall short of providing concessionaries with security in their entitlement to concessionary fuel and cash in lieu. We shall return to that and the lack of


protection, as we see it, for the entitlement of workers who are currently employed in the industry. That worries us; it will worry the Committee, and we will take that forward.
We have also heard about the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation—CISWO. The interesting thing about CISWO is that the Minister did not quite know how to pronounce it. There was a great difficulty in the pronounciation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) says, it is pronounced "Siswo", not "Kiswo". We could have a lot of discussion about that. Nevertheless, it is a major subject that we shall consider.
We say that the Bill as a whole, with the money resolution, should seek to continue the work of CISWO and ensure that it is adequately funded. As yet, as we see it, there are no satisfactory proposals which would give CISWO or a successor organisation a secure enough future with adequate funding.
So the Minister can see—I am glad that he will be on the Committee—that, as we wend our way through the money resolution and through ways and means, and as we get through the Bill and into Committee, there will be enough sustenance for us. There will be enough fears to allay of pensioners, of people who receive concessionary fuel and of people who are worried about environmental liabilities.
We promise, not a long hot summer for the Minister, but a chilly, lengthy winter.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall make a short contribution to the debate.

Mr. Eric Illsley: More!

Mr. Dickens: No; I shall not go on all night.
The money resolution is central to the privatisation of the coal industry. One has to ask oneself why the coal industry needs to be privatised. If one thinks back to the days when the coal mining industry was nationalised, one has to remember that there were about 1,000 coal mines in the United Kingdom. Year after year, closure has followed closure. It is common knowledge that Lord Robens and the former Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), closed about one coal mine every 10 days. The right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Energy for the Labour party: we must not forget that.
We must not sit on the Conservative Benches taking lessons on why we should do this and why we should do that, without fighting back a little and reminding the coal mining industry why we need the money resolution. We need the resolution because, if we are to save the coal mining industry—hon. Members should remember that, even in the state in which it is today, it is still one of the largest coal mining industries in the world, and it will remain as such—we still need to safeguard the work force with a money resolution.
The successor companies must have the wherewithal to safeguard pension funds and to ensure that the obligations are met, so that miners receive their proper pensions, whoever owns the coal mines. We have to ensure that the concessionary fuel that mining families have enjoyed over the years is still paid to those families, or money in lieu. That is why the money resolution is central to the Bill. If they want to save the mining industry, the Opposition should not vote against it, or make difficulties in

Committee. It is through the money resolution and in Committee that we shall safeguard the welfare of the work force in the mines.
It may surprise Labour Members to know that I come from mining stock. I had relatives down the Ripley and the Alfreton mines, in Derbyshire. I do not need lectures from the Opposition about the interests of the coal mining industry, because I speak for my own flesh and blood. No, I did not go to university, either. I went to a secondary modern school, and I am quite proud of it, although I also wish that I had had a university education, because I know that the lack of it shows at times—although not so clearly as it shows every day of the week in Labour Members.
The money resolution is central. We must ensure the continuation of the mining industry, because we must have a mix of fuel. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) talked about an energy policy, and we need oil, gas, nuclear power and coal—one could put those fuels in the reverse order if one liked. Never again must the United Kingdom be held to ransom by a year-long miners' strike that threatens to put out the lights and stop companies from running. Never again must we be placed in that position.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman takes off too far, I remind him that we are dealing with a money resolution. I should be grateful if he would return to that topic.

Mr. Dickens: I am grateful to you for having drawn that to my attention, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are right. Just by chance, I was about to finish my speech, because I know how many Labour Members want to speak.

Mr. Illsley: Has not the hon. Gentleman just let the cat out of the bag with his reference to the 1984 miners' strike? Obviously he intended to go on to refer to the 1974 strike, too. Is it not true that the privatisation of coal is related to those strikes, in that it is a way of getting back at the mining unions in revenge for those strikes, especially that of 1974?

Mr. Dickens: The hon. Gentleman probably knows more about that question than I do, because in earlier days he was an adviser to Arthur Scargill in Barnsley.

Mr. Enright: And a very good one, too. It was when Arthur Scargill lost my hon. Friend that he went astray.

Mr. Dickens: I am trying to be brief, but clearly Opposition Members are enjoying my contribution.
To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), we are privatising the coal industry for one reason alone. Whatever party is in power, politicians, in the form of the Department of Trade and Industry, are the worst people to help run industry. The sooner we get politicians off the back of industry the better. The DTI has done a reasonable job until now, but I am sure that private industry will do a good job in one respect.
The mining industry is in a mess today because of its pitiful marketing of coal. It is no good digging coal if one cannot sell it. Private industry, with its management techniques and marketing skills, is far better able to market coal across Europe and to provide the coal mining industry with a future. As I finish my speech, all that I ask Labour Members to remember is that the future of the United Kingdom coal mining industry is in their hands today. If they want a future, they must allow it to carry on.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's peroration, but it is not relevant.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It would be useful if, when hon. Members discussed the money resolution, they showed some sign of having read it. It is a funny old money resolution, because in some ways it says too much and is too open ended, yet in other ways it says too little.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) pointed out some of the omissions in the motion, perhaps I ought to illustrate some of the ways in which the motion opens issues up too much and how they should be defined more clearly. It has been talked about it as a funny old money motion. A lot of funny old money is likely to be made out of the privatisation of mining, because the country has massive coal reserves. We are blocking off certain coal reserves off the Durham coast, but otherwise the coal reserves of deep-mined coal will remain underground for a future of opencast development.
If we shift pricing policy and alter the fuel market, vast amounts of profit will be made from the coal mining industry.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I bring to your attention the conference being held in the corner, which is distracting me? I cannot hear what my hon. Friend is saying.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that that point will be well taken.

Mr. Barnes: The point might have been well taken if it had been heard by the people responsible.
There is a great deal of money to be made out of coal in the country, despite the fact that we are now considering the privatisation of a relatively small industry, which has been allowed to shrink considerably. Nevertheless, there are massive coal reserves, from the Leeds area to Nottingham and Derby, cutting through my constituency, to be obtained by opencast methods. Whether it is in a former mining area or in areas which were mined in the past century, almost any piece of land that has not been built on will become open to that potential.
There is something missing to enable our consideration of the money motion. Nothing in the motion or the Bill tells us what size the coal industry will be after privatisation. We should have figures that are relevant to its size, because of the open-ended provisions in the motion. The motion outlines the Coal Authority's rights of acquisition, its rights of obtaining security, the operations of successor companies, and the compensation to people being moved from positions on the board. However, for us to be able to make some assessment of all that, we should be able to understand what is being proposed and planned for the future of the industry. It is a peculiar motion.
Even if Opposition Members accept that we have lost the Second Reading, that measures are to go into Committee, and even in the light of the fact that the money resolution is attached to that Bill, it has massive shortcomings. The motion should be rejected on its own demerits, as well as on the demerits of its being part and parcel of a Bill which is anti-social and will kill off the coal industry in Derbyshire, in Durham and in many other parts of the country.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend is making an important point. I am pleased to see that the President of the Board of Trade has joined us as we come to the end of discussing the money resolution. Perhaps he can tell us what paragraph 1(e)(i) means, which uses the words:
to a person who ceases to hold office as a chairman or member of the corporation".
Is it not the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade to tell the House what sums of money are involved in that so-called compensation?
How much are we talking about? Neil Clarke has been as good to the coal industry as Rachman was to housing policy in Westminster city council. Now we have a provision that will pay him hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation. The President of the Board of Trade should say exactly how much we are going to use to pay off the chairman, who has ruined the coal industry, as a backhander for his services.

Mr. Barnes: I agree. If we consider paragraph (1)(a) to (i), we will find similar questions to ask.
It is interesting that the Minister has not sought to speak. He could have jumped up at the beginning of the debate and explained what the missing points are about. Ideally, there should not be missing points. We should be able to read the motion, see the detail and the implications involved, and do our own accountancy in order to make up our minds before we vote.
In the absence of that, and in a very short time, the Minister should explain exactly what the motion is about. He should also take up the points that were made on Second Reading about the environment, safety and so on, and tell us how they relate to the measure and whether our concerns will be answered by the resolution.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): In some respects, this has been a rather amusing debate. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) told us that, because the Labour party nationalised the coal industry in 1947 and it was in its election manifesto, and therefore a mandate, we should not seek to change it. I take a little more comfort from a more recent document, the previous Conservative manifesto, which said that we would privatise British Coal. That commitment has far more standing than one given in 1945.

Mr. Hood: As we are discussing manifestos, would the Minister like to tell us about his party's commitment not to increase taxes?

Mr. McLoughlin: That point has been perfectly covered on numerous occasions. I am speaking to the motion and about a certain commitment about which I was asked tonight.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), in a most incredible speech, almost accused me of having gone to a public school. That has never happened to me before. He asked for an assurance that the bands in his constituency will be around for the next 250 years. Not many politicians—not even the hon. Gentleman—would make a commitment relating to the next 250 years. That was a strange request. It shows the farce which the debate has come to.

Mr. Enright: I did indeed do that. I shall give the precise figures. The mover of the motion has a


Parliamentary Private Secretary who took enough money out of the Government to subsidise, for 250 years at current prices, the shortfall for the two bands of Frickley and Frickley Athletic. It was a simple mathematical point that I was making.

Mr. McLoughlin: That is a spurious point, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. If that is his argument, it just shows how devoid the Opposition are of sensible arguments on the issue.
I was asked several questions about concessionary fuel by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. That is a matter in which I have a particular interest. My mother has been receiving concessionary fuel as the beneficiary of my father, who worked in the coal industry for 30 years. Concessionary fuel and the rights and entitlements of beneficiaries are very important.
Yesterday, in announcing our conclusions on the consultation paper, my hon. Friend the Minister of State made the Government's position clear. If Labour Members vote against this resolution, they will be voting against the Government having the opportunity to provide the funds for concessionary coal.

Mr. Michael Clapham: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: I am sorry—I have literally a couple of minutes left. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find time to come back to this point.
As we have seen from the exchanges tonight, it is an important matter which undoubtedly will be debated in Committee. I have made my position clear on the importance of that subject. Clearly, if Labour Members vote against this money resolution, they will be voting against the provision of concessionary coal—

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 122.

Division No. 76]
[11.15 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Andrew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bowis, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ashby, David
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aspinwall, Jack
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Atkins, Robert
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burns, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butler, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bates, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Berth, Rt Hon A. J.
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Berestord, Sir Paul
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chapman, Sydney


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Churchill, Mr


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clappison, James


Booth, Hartley
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)





Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kilfedder, Sir James


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Faber, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fabricant, Michael
Legg, Barry


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fishburn, Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fry, Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael


Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Milligan, Stephen


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, Andrew
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Harvey, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth






Pickles, Eric
Sumberg, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sweeney, Walter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Sykes, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Rendel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thomason, Roy


Richards, Rod
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tracey, Richard


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trend, Michael


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Trotter, Neville


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tyler, Paul


Sackville, Tom
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walden, George


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Willetts, David


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stephen, Michael



Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Allan
Mr. Andrew Mackay and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Streeter, Gary





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dowd, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Enright, Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Fatchett, Derek


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Harry
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galbraith, Sam


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gerrard, Neil


Bell, Stuart
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Betts, Clive
Godsiff, Roger


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hall, Mike


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hanson, David


Cann, Jamie
Hardy, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Bob
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Darting, Alistair
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Denham, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kilfoyle, Peter





Leighton, Ron
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Lewis, Terry
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Primarolo, Dawn


Llwyd, Elfyn
Raynsford, Nick


Macdonald, Calum
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McFall, John
Short, Clare


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan


McMaster, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Stott, Roger


Michael, Alun
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Miller, Andrew
Turner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morley, Elliot
Wareing, Robert N


Mowlam, Marjorie
Watson, Mike


Murphy, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wilson, Brian


Olner, William
Wise, Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Patchett, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pope, Greg
Mr. Michael Clapham and Mr. Bill Etherington.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Coal Industry Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the following, namely—

(a) sums required by the Secretary of State for paying to the Coal Authority established by the Act amounts required by that Authority for carrying out its functions;
(b) expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in consequence of provision made by the Act for the acquisition of, or of rights to subscribe for, securities of successor companies;
(c) sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to the British Coal Corporation and to successor companies which are wholly owned by the Crown;
(d) sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments for purposes connected with the supply of concessionary coal and the payment of sums in lieu of concessionary coal;
(e) sums required by the Secretary of State for making any payment of compensation for loss of office—

(i) to a person who ceases to hold office as a chairman or member of the Corporation, or
(ii) to the person who is the chairman of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council when it ceases to exist;
(f) sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments in pursuance of arrangements entered into by him for securing that the assets of an existing pension scheme are sufficient for meeting pension obligations arising under the scheme;
(g) administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Treasury in consequence of the provisions of the Act;
(h) sums required by any Minister of the Crown or Government department for meeting obligations arising in consequence of that Minister or department becoming entitled or subject, in accordance with a scheme under the Act, to any property, rights or liabilities;
(i) increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act;

(2) the extinguishment of liabilities of the British Coal Corporation in respect of—

(a) sums lent to that Corporation out of money provided by Parliament;


(b) sums which are to be taken as having been so lent; and
(c) interest in respect of any such sums;

(3) the issuing out of the National Loans Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for making loans to a successor company at a time when it is wholly owned by the Crown;

(4) the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling such guarantees given by them for the discharge of financial obligations in connection with sums borrowed by a successor company as are given in respect of such a company at a time when it is wholly owned by the Crown.

In this Resolution "successor company" means any company to whom property, rights or liabilities of the British Coal Corporation or any of its wholly-owned subsidiaries are transferred in accordance with a scheme under the Act and at a time when the company is wholly owned by the Crown.

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Bill [Ways and Means]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Coal Industry Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the making by the Coal Authority established by the Act of charges for things done in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties;
(b) the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions relating to the taxation of persons to and from whom property, rights and liabilities are transferred in accordance with schemes under the Act; and
(c) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call hon. Members, may I make it clear that the Ways and Means motion deals with specific charges. It is not an excuse for a re-run of the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I take on board your warning, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Paragraph (a) of the motion states:
the making by the Coal Authority established by the Act of charges for things done in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties ;". [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is still a general buzz of conversation, which is not confined to hon. Members from one party. It is discourteous to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful for your assistance, Madam Deputy Speaker, in subduing a crowded House.
I should like to speak about the Coal Authority that will be established by the Bill and about the charges for the exercise of its powers and duties. Surprisingly, some powers have been left out of the authority's remit. The timing of the Bill and the associated legislation is deplorable. In the previous debate, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) spoke about an industry in the grasp of politicians, and said that politicians should not involve themselves in the running of an industry. To some extent, I agree with him, and ask why politicians have retained an interest in the running of the nuclear power industry by way of subsidy to that industry. That subsidy is not available to coal.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Gentleman invites me to explain. He was a member of the Select Committee on Energy and knows that the suggestion that the nuclear industry should be privatised could not be made bankable because the generators could not explain the costs of decommissioning. If that had been explained, privatisation would have been a bankable matter and could have gone ahead.

Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman is right: he and I served on that Select Committee. When we examined the evidence that the Department of Energy was willing to present—that which was not comercially confidential—we realised that the nuclear power industry had been uneconomic for many years. The price of coal to the generators had not increased since 1985, and it was apparent that coal had subsidised nuclear power for many years. The industry suffered greatly as a consequence, but


I shall not debate the nuclear power industry, not only because it is outside the terms of the motion, but because I am aware of sedentary admonition from some of my hon. Friends.
The coal industry has been run down from 1985. Prices have not been increased and in the past two years the industry has been run down even more rapidly, and that has led to the Bill and the associated legislation. Over the past 18 months the President of the Board of Trade has announced the closure of 30 pits, and in the months ahead there are likely to be many more. Press releases in the past few days have shown that seven collieries are scheduled to close.
It is ludicrous to debate this legislation at a time when the coal industry is in turmoil. Nobody can say how many collieries will be left this time next year or whether any will be left. Established coal contracts are for about half the tonnage agreed in previous years. We now have a much reduced market and a large number of colliery closures. The Bill, the resolution and the Coal Authority are not strong enough to deal with what is happening now. It is the wrong time to be considering the privatisation of the industry which is in such turmoil that we should take the Bill, the Ways and Means resolution, the money resolution and the rest and rethink the idea of coal privatisation.

Mr. Stuart Bell: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the interven-tion takes place, may I point out that we are dealing specifically with the Ways and Means resolution, and that any remarks must be related to that? I am sure that considerable ingenuity will be exercised by hon. Members.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend will understand what you are saying, Madam Deputy Speaker. All that will happen when the Bill goes through Committee will relate to the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority will be responsible for the charges and for the exercise and performance of its powers and duties. I am sure that, as my hon. Friend makes his speech, he will think about the significance of the Coal Authority.

Mr. Illsley: I shall move on to the powers and duties in relation to the Ways and Means resolution. I was slightly distracted by the argument about nuclear power.
The resolution is untimely in creating the coal authority when the industry is in a state of uncertainty. No one can envisage exactly how the industry will fair over the forthcoming few months and whether the Coal Authority will have any collieries over which to preside when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The Coal Authority, to which the resolution refers, takes over certain liabilities from British Coal and from the Government. It also takes over some of the outstanding liabilities. One of the arguments on which I shall expand in a few moments relates to the liabilities that the Government will leave to a privatised industry. They will make it unattractive to anyone wanting to buy into the industry and will add costs to any private operator.
Those liabilities and costs could be detrimental to the industry when it is privatised and should be accepted by the coal authority and the Government to make sure that, when the industry is privatised, there will be no danger that it will die because no private operator will take on its liabilities.

Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which covers the sale of assets by British Coal. When estimating the amount of liability which British Coal has now, it would be worth while my hon. Friend casting his mind over the assets which will yield revenue that is authorised by the Ways and Means resolution.

Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The main revenue-raising power for the coal authority will be licensing. I intend to make some remarks in due course relating to the conditions that the authority will place on licences to the private sector. The strength of that licensing regime will be crucial to certain aspects of the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: If I could just make a further inquiry on my hon. Friend's speech, one wonders whether the Ways and Means resolution is necessary. The section of the Bill relating to manpower or staff envisages at least 100 people being employed by the Coal Authority. One wonders what revenue is envisaged as a result of the licensing activities of the Coal Authority which provides revenue authorised by the Ways and Means resolution. It seems to me that the licensing revenue may be so trivial and set against the liabilities that it makes the Ways and Means resolution otiose.

Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The financial memorandum to the Bill refers to the Coal Authority's costs, but states:
Accurate assessments of the Coal Industry's costs—including staffing and subsidence costs—and income are not possible at this stage.
Even the Government are not able to give us an idea of the income that will be generated through the authority's licensing operations.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: rose—

Mr. Illsley: Will my hon. Friend bear with me for a moment?
Even now, the authority's income is not included in the Bill because the Government have been unable to estimate it. One hopes that by the time the Bill is discussed in Committee, such points will be highlighted. The omission lends credibility to my argument that, if we cannot determine the authority's income and what the licensing regime will be, we should not be debating the Bill, the money resolution or the Ways and Means motion now, because they are premature.

Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. In Committee, the Minister will have a great many questions to answer.
My hon. Friend referred, among other things, to the Coal Authority's licensing fees, but no one seems to have considered the costs that it will incur. Until recently, the mines drainage unit was based in my area. The unit was then closed and the responsibility was passed to Silverwood colliery. Silverwood is to close, so who will take on the drainage function? In my constituency, there are four seams of outcrop which are very close to the surface and which have been known to engage in spontaneous combustion. Would my hon. Friend care to ask the Minister how many staff there will be in South Yorkshire to exercise the authority's responsibility in that respect?

Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He and I have already discussed what would happen if there were fires—underground fires or, as he fears, outcropping fires—without the mines rescue resources to deal with them. Clearly, as outlined in the motion, the Coal Authority takes responsibility for licensing and charges and will have within its remit the income from the sale of land.
One issue that must be debated thoroughly is how the authority will dispose of the land and what regulations will be in place to ensure the safety of that land which is disposed of and which is a fire hazard, such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). Will the sale include a covenant to ensure that the private operator purchasing such a plot of land will have the responsibility of dealing with any emergency?
I again cite the financial memorandum, which states that the costs and income of the Coal Authority cannot be assessed "at this stage". The Bill is therefore premature.

Mr. Dickens: For the privatisation to be successful, the successor companies will want to know the ground rules, which have to be set out most carefully. In addition to acquiring any of the industry's assets, the companies will have a duty to acquire the liabilities which will include having to deal with spontaneous combustion and subsidence. The Government have to lay down the ground rules sensibly to make the privatisation attractive; if not, the industry will not be privatised.

Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point; one that I should like to stress. He is saying that, unless the Ways and Means resolution gives sufficient finance to the Coal Authority to exercise its powers and duties, the privatisation is unlikely to be a success because the successor companies will not accept such liabilities. My point is that the ways and means given to the authority have to be sufficient to enable it to discharge its functions. Not only that but under the resolution, the Government will have to give the authority wider powers to deal with matters scheduled to be transferred to the successor companies. In my view, the Government must accept through the Coal Authority more duties than at present—and the costs that go with them.
A major obstacle to successful privatisation are the liabilities left to successor companies—and which in this case will not pass to the Coal Authority, as most people expected.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am not clear in my mind whether the resolution gives the Coal Authority the power to reimburse the Government for the sums of up to £200,000 that will be made available to groups wishing to exercise their right to apply for a licence.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It could be a royal exhibition grant.

Mr. O'Neill: It could, but there are not many exhibitions in Barnsley on the scale that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) had in mind.
The Coal Authority will receive applications from groups that have received money from the Government, not British Coal, for the purpose of putting together the business plan that will form the core of a licence. That is apparently being done to encourage management buy-outs and worker participation. Does my hon. Friend believe that, under the terms of the Ways and Means resolution, the

authority will have the necessary powers and duties to provide that money, or will that be the responsibility of the Government or British Coal?

Mr. Illsley: The conflict that arises is whether the Coal Authority is likely to have returned to it the funding that the Government will give out in the form of loans to successor companies. My hon. Friend will have read the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Coal Industry Bill, which states:
The Bill enables the Secretary of State to grant loans of up to £3,000 million to successor companies".
My hon. Friend mentioned a figure of £200,000. That relates to individual grants to groups contemplating a buy-out. The total sum involved will be £3 billion. Will the Coal Authority have sufficient teeth to recoup that Government expenditure, and will it have any licensing teeth in respect of the liabilities in the Ways and Means resolution.
If one considers the outstanding liabilities, one can see how many powers have been allocated to the authority and judge how successful it will be after privatisation. The resolution makes reference to the powers, duties and money given to the authority, which is another quango.
One of the first references in the Bill is to the salaries of the people who will serve on the Coal Authority. We cannot determine the authority's income, the charges that it will levy or the licensing regime that it will operate—hut the measure is quick to point out that the members of the authority will receive sufficient salaries and expenses to enable them to do their work.
Under the Coal Industry Bill, the authority will be responsible for licensing not only deep-mine operations but opencast mining. Applications for opencast mining are still to be encouraged as part of the Coal Authority's duties. At the same time, the industry is being totally run down and subjected to colliery closure after colliery closure.
Last year, just under 18 million tonnes of coal was opencast in this country; total contract tonnage for the generators was 30 million. Almost two thirds of our coal is now being obtained through opencast for power generation, which is the last market available to British Coal. We are allowing opencast to undercut British Coal: we have allowed that cheaper mining method to pose a problem in the search for future markets. Yet the number of opencast applications continues to increase, despite public opposition to the process.
The motion refers to "powers and duties". Where is a duty placed on the Coal Authority to protect the environment? Opencast mining causes pollution—dust, noise, fumes and heavy traffic, for instance. Will the Coal Authority be given any environmental duty under the licensing regime? We know that it will have power to grant licences, but will it have the power to tell any private operator to whom it gives such a licence that the licence will be conditional on an adequate environmental protection regime, thus ensuring that the countryside in opencast areas is left in a decent state when the operation is finished?

Mr. Derek Fatchett: My hon. Friend has raised a number of important points about the Coal Authority's functions. Has he noted paragraph 1(4) of schedule 1, which lists the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can remove a member of the authority? Under paragraph 1(4)(c), he can remove a member of the authority if he considers that person


unable or unfit to carry out the functions of a member
Does that condition worry my hon. Friend, who has made some important points about opencast and environmental considerations? Might not a member of the authority who was opposed to opencast mining, and the environmental conditions that it creates, lose his position? Should we not consider such issues?

Mr. Illsley: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) replies, may I issue a small warning? We are dealing with the question of charges, and hon. Members' remarks must relate to that subject. Hon. Members cannot engage in a general debate about the duties of the Coal Authority without relating it to charges.

Mr. Illsley: I accept your warning, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has made an important point, which will presumably be taken up on Committee: it may well be beyond the scope of the motion. Clearly, fitness for membership of the authority should be paralleled by the fitness of successor companies to be considered for licences, and that should be defined in the schedule.
All the powers and duties of the Coal Authority will, of course, be subject to either charges of income. They will all be related to the licensing regime.
I mentioned opencasting earlier. The charges are relevant to opencasting in that presumably the Coal Authority will obtain income from the scale of land to various successor companies and from charging under the licensing regime. It will charge the opencasting companies for the benefit of obtaining a licence.
The Coal Authority will pass responsibility for health and safety to the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission. Health and safety should be a responsibility of the Coal Authority. There is little reference to health and safety in the Bill. Clause 4 is about 20 lines long. Previous legislation contained an all-important clause stating that British Coal had responsibility for the health and safety of its work force. As I understand it, the Bill and the Ways and Means motion do not place a duty on any successor company. There is no requirement that any successor company should take steps to safeguard the health and safety of its employees.
The licensees to whom authority is given to win coal should have an obligation placed on them, and be charged for it by the Coal Authority, to ensure the health and safety of their employees. Whether the companies are engaged in opencast mining or deep mining, they should be responsible for the health and safety of their work force.
Several hon. Members have raised fears about health and safety and the inadequacy of the Bill's health and safety provisions. I do not intend to follow that line of argument. I simply wish to make the point that the Coal Authority should have a duty on health and safety and should have the power to charge and fine companies or refer them to the Health and Safety Executive if they are in breach of the normal health and safety guidelines. That brings me to what powers the Coal Authority has to levy charges and the conditions that it can place in the licences.
We are discussing the Coal Authority again under the Ways and Means motion yet we have not seen the contents of the licences that will be awarded by that authority to the successor companies. We have no idea what could be in the licences. That gives cause for concern. When we have discussed the Bill, the resolutions and all the rest of it, we might still not know what conditions the Coal Authority can place in a licence, what charges it can make and what income it will derive from licensing operations.
Britain's record in health and safety could be jeopardised. I see the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) falling asleep at what I am saying. As a former member of the Energy Select Committee, I am sure that he cares about health and safety in the mining industry. He should perhaps listen more intently to the fears of Opposition Members.
One of the powers and duties of the Coal Authority, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), is the operation of a mines rescue service. The point relates particularly to charges and duties. There is little in the Bill or the information on the Coal Authority about a mines rescue service. That liability will be passed to the successor companies. If the Coal Authority has responsibility for a mines rescue service, it will have to levy a charge against the successor companies.
Returning to the comments of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), are the successor companies willing to take on the financing and operation of a mines rescue service and have that charge levied against them by the Coal Authority? Will they be willing to accept that, or are they likely to say that they want little to do with the service and do not see why they should pay for it because that duty should be placed on the Government as a residual liability?
The Government have not dealt with residual liabilities in the motion. The mines rescue service has considerable expertise, equipment, land and buildings. Obviously a great deal of thought—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a semi-private conversation between a Back-Bench Member on one side and a Minister on the other.

Mr. Illsley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
A considerable amount of planning has to go into the mines rescue service. One of the latest rescue centres was established by British Coal to service the Selby coalfield. Obviously, with five packages as disparate as Scotland, Wales and the central areas of England, the successor companies will want to contribute as little as possible in charges to the Coal Authority for a mines rescue service. They will want the minimum service that they can get away with, because they will not want to contribute to the cost.
Where will the centres be based if they are to service an industry that is spread across the length and breadth of the north of England? How are the charges to be levied? Will it be a condition of the licence that successor companies will be required to contribute to the rescue service and, if so, in what proportions? Will the service be Government-funded?
The Government should retain the rescue service as a residual liability. It is just another example of a liability that should have been allocated to the Coal Authority. We should be discussing that authority's detailed provisions for health and safety and the mines rescue service. The


authority will grant a licence to the successor company. Will the rescue service and health and safety be conditions of that licence? Will a duty be placed on the Coal Authority to remove a licence if a successor does not meet an accepted standard of health and safety provision, or its contributions towards a mines rescue service?

Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friend's argument is of special relevance to the colliery in my constituency. Any charge imposed by the Coal Authority on a Scottish coal operation would be disproportionate.
As you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker, a mines rescue service is a complicated business, as it requires a continuous shift system and therefore needs four or five times as many people to run it. The facility also needs to be fairly close to the coalfield. In Scotland, the difficulty is that for the foreseeable future there is likely to be only one complex of mines. There is a small offshoot at Monktonhall. At present British Coal pays for that and Monktonhall miners co-operative does not contribute to it.
When the new coal authority grants a licence, if the charge is to be sufficient to meet the cost of such a scheme it will have to be disproportionately expensive for the Scottish mining operation because the scheme would be smaller than one for the centre of northern England, where the Yorkshire mines will be located. The costs of a rescue scheme are of great significance to licensing in different parts of the country.

Mr. Illsley: That is a telling point about Scotland, and the same will apply to Wales. If the Coal Authority is to consider a mines rescue service when issuing licences, the successor companies will look long and hard at the situation in Scotland and Wales. If the Coal Authority is to take account, under the licensing regime, of a mines rescue service and, as a consequence, has to ensure that a part of that service will operate in Scotland and in Wales, obviously, as a result of the disproportionate number of collieries in Scotland and Wales compared with the central region, the successor companies in the central region will be required to pay the lion's share of maintaining a service that will operate in outlying areas.
That is a cost which the successor companies will be unwilling to meet, because they will be paying, in the central region, for a mines rescue service that is to operate in Scotland and peripheral areas. I am sure that those companies will regard that as a disproportionate cost placed on their company after privatisation.
As my hon. Friend the member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) points out, the licensing regime under the resolution and the charging by the coal authority is crucial in all those respects. Without having sight of the licences, we cannot know the conditions that will be placed on the successor companies in such a crucial sector as mines rescue. How are we to maintain a mines rescue service under that system? Will the successor companies be willing to be charged by the Coal Authority for the provision of that services?
A further liability is subsidence. The Coal Authority will not be given sufficient duties or powers in relation to subsidence. Earlier, the President of the Board of Trade said that subsidence liability would be passed to the Coal Authority, except in certain circumstances in which subsidence damage or compensation for subsidence damage can be allocated to a specific successor company. The President of the Board of Trade said in his speech that

that would enable members of the public to determine exactly who is responsible for subsidence damage to their properties or their land and to take the appropriate action.
I put it to the Minister that that is an absolute nonsense. There is no way that a member of the public will get a straight answer from the successor companies operating in the industry in relation to subsidence. It is difficult enough now under British Coal. Obviously, members of the public will chase from one company to another as each company denies responsibility for the subsidence damage to their property. How is the average member of the public to prove responsibility for subsidence damage?

Mr. Hood: That is one of the parts of the Bill that puzzle me. It says:
It is estimated that subsidence will initially cost the Authority £35–40 million per annum, but that this is expected to fall to under £20 million in the last year of the century.
I assume that my hon. Friend's experience is the same as mine. The cost of subsidence has not been decreasing, and it will continue to increase for a considerable time after the end of the century. That seems to be an estimate by an organisation which is not identified in the Bill and which I suspect from the rhetoric in the Bill has no expertise or understanding of the problem of subsidence. Is that not another nonsense? The true calculations have not been put into the Government's assumptions of actual costs.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My experience of the Bill also takes into account the report of the Energy Select Committee in relation to subsidence and the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. It was apparent from those deliberations that the general public do not get the fairest deal when it comes to subsidence damage. Matters will only be made worse because of the Government's intention to place the responsibility for subsidence damage on successor companies and only partly on the coal authority. As a result, the Coal Authority will have to mop up all the residual liabilities when members of the public cannot obtain adequate compensation from the colliery company responsible in their particular region.
The question is why, under the licensing and charging regime, the Coal Authority has not been given total responsibility for subsidence damage. It would be far simpler for that authority to be vested with the power to grant compensation for subsidence, and subsequently to charge the money back to the successor companies that it determined were responsible for the damage. That would give members of the public direct access to one body., a one-stop shop where they could go to pursue a claim. The successor companies would know that the coal authority would charge the compensation back to them as part of the licensing regime, and that would be far simpler than the procedure envisaged in the resolution.
It is sad that certain sections of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 are to be deleted. I served on the Committee on that Act when it was a Bill. It is now likely that the coal authority will place no responsibility on successor companies to notify individual areas, and the owners of houses and other properties, of local mining orperations and the consequent likelihood of their properties being subject to subsidence damage. The Bill will remove that responsibility.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend will recall that, during proceedings on the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, our


former colleague and good friend Allen McKay, who was then the Member of Parliament for Barnsley, West and Penistone, and whose constituency—a mining area since ancient times—adjoined mine, told the House about an occasion not long before he became a Member of Parliament when he was a voluntary fireman. He attended an incident in which some land had collapsed in order to rescue two cows that had fallen down a long-disused mine.
This is a true story, Madam Deputy Speaker, and is entirely relevant to the point that my hon. Friend was making. Conservative Members will recall Allen McKay, and he informed the House—[Interruption.] We are entitled to ask the Minister to take the matter seriously. My former hon. Friend asked the House who would be responsible for the subsidence, for the expenditure of the voluntary and professional firemen who had to attend, and to the farmer for all the inconvenience that he had suffered, and for the suffering, injury or even loss of the two cows? Does my hon. Friend think that such calculations crossed the Government's mind as they prepared to establish the authority?

Mr. Illsley: Certainly some calculations have crossed the Government's mind—mainly concerning how much responsibility should be passed to the successor companies. To minimise that responsibility they have decided to do away with some sections of the 1991 Act in so far as they relate to notification of individuals and to the responsibility of the industry to maintain plans in connection with subsidence damage. Without such notification, individuals will not be appraised of their rights under the subsidence legislation. The change is being made to reduce the costs of the industry after privatisation. The Act is less than three years old, so we have debated the subject recently and decided that that duty should be placed on the industry; yet the Government now seek to remove it.
The original provisions had the blessing of the all-party Select Committee on Energy, which debated subsidence damage as a precursor to the Act, and there was all-party agreement to its report, which said that there should be the duty of notification. I am surprised that the Government are seeking to reduce the effectiveness of the 1991 Act. The new subsidence proposals are totally unacceptable. They will be ignored by private sector companies and the rights of members of the public in relation to subsidence damage will be severely diminished as companies try to avoid their responsibilities for such damage, which is especially severe in the Nottinghamshire area.
Will the Minister tell us why no successor body to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation—CISWO—has been delineated? The coal Authority has not been given any powers in relation to welfare. The Minister and I have discussed welfare and he has taken the view that an industry such as mining has no need for welfare provision. He would make the point that welfare provision does not apply in any other area other than the armed forces. The mining industry has been a dangerous industry, it is a dangerous industry and there will always be requirements for welfare. The Bill scraps the Miners Welfare Act 1952 and makes no provision for a successor body.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to pull up the hon. Gentleman, but he must relate what he is now

saying more closely to the charges. If he can do that, fine. We cannot have a general debate, in which I think he is now engaging.

Mr. Hood: I am sure that my hon. Friend is going to keep in order and I hope that my question is as well. Is it not the case that CISWO provides social care for 11,000 miners, retired miners and paraplegics at a cost of £2·5 million a year? If that care is not provided for in the Bill, either the 11,000 miners who have been receiving that care will lose out, or there will be a burden on local authority community care and it will cost a lot more than £2·5 million.

Mr. Illsley: The industry requires welfare provision. The point that I wish to make in relation to the motion is that the Bill removes the Miners Welfare Act 1952 and leaves a void. The only successor body under the whole privatisation scenario would be the Coal Authority. That cost of £2·5 million per annum, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) referred, should be charged through the Coal Authority either to the successor companies or to some other bodies which are created to provide welfare.
Obviously, the best way in which the coal industry social welfare organisation could have moved forward would have been to leave it alone, to leave the Act of 1952 in place and not meddle with it. Once the Government begin to consider a successor to the Act of 1952, the only available option is the Coal Authority, and we shall unravel a whole host of difficulties in the provision of welfare.
Will the Minister consider specifically making the Coal Authority the body responsible for welfare and giving it power to recharge the relatively modest cost for the provision of welfare—some £2·5 million—back through the industry to maintain that welfare? The other side of the coin is that if we are left with a void in relation to welfare provisions nobody will pick it up. The successor companies will go to the Coal Authority which wishes to charge them for welfare and why they should pay for the welfare of their work force when they do not see that as an appropriate cost to their business.
All year, we have heard of the costs to industry of social provision, but here we have a clear case where social welfare provision should be retained. As I have said, there are 500,000 beneficiaries of that provision and 72,000 people in receipt of benefit for pneumoconiosis—a prescribed disease in the mining industry. That is where the need for welfare arises. The coal industry is unique in terms of its dangers and its susceptibility to industrial illness and injury. There is a requirement for welfare, and it should be taken on by the Government.
I hope that amendments are moved in Committee to enable the Coal Authority to become the responsible body for that welfare provision. There will be considerable disappointment in mining areas if welfare provision is not accounted for. Obviously, local authorities will be mentioned as taking up the responsibility for welfare. They do not have the resources to do so. Therefore, they cannot charge the Coal Authority for that provision. The Coal Authority will not have a duty to a local authority for the provision of welfare.
There are two other matters to which I wish to refer in relation to the Coal Authority. The penultimate one—

Mr. Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman should not cut short his speech.

Mr. Illsley: It is not a long speech—or, rather, it would not have been.
My penultimate point is about pensions, the Coal Authority and why the Coal Authority will not be allowed to take on responsibility for pensions after privatisation. As the Minister knows, pensions are dealt with by the British Coal pensions and insurance centre in Sheffield, and there is a question about its future role in the provision of pensions and benefits. The coal industry insures its own risks. British Coal does not have an insurance policy. It has to insure itself against whatever risk—for example, civil liability, personal injury—and there are substantial claims against it. The pension schemes relate to a fund of £14 billion.
Where is the safeguard through the Coal Authority in respect of pension schemes? It is suggested that the £14 billion be allocated to the Government and that they will take responsibility for allocating pensions in future, on the basis that 50 per cent. of the surplus will be allocated immediately to the Government. But what will happen to current workers? Their existing pension entitlement will end, their pension scheme will be wound up, and they will begin another pension scheme, perhaps with a private pension fund.
Where are the safeguards for serving mineworkers pension provision? The mineworkers pension scheme is quite good. When it came to opting out a few years ago under the 1986 legislation, many private pension companies were unwilling to accept mine workers transferring because the benefits under private provision were not as good as under the mineworkers pension scheme. In particular, the mineworkers pension scheme contained provision for widows' benefit. The private pension industry was unwilling to make a similar commitment, and transfers to private pension funds were not as good as under the mineworkers pension scheme. Therefore there were few transfers to private pension plans.
We have the same problem now with privatisation. A very good scheme, which is in surplus, and which has employees taking a contributions holiday to the tune of £800 million, is to be wound up. What is the logic in winding up the mineworkers pension scheme, and forcing every serving mineworker to take on a new scheme? Surely there is a vehicle—the Coal Authority—which can take responsibility for the provision of pensions, or license the existing pension organisation and charge the successor company.
The Coal Authority has licensed its pension provision to the pensions organisation, the pensions organisation administers the pension scheme on behalf of the successor companies and charges them for that service. I am convinced that the successor companies will welcome that with open arms. How many companies will welcome with open arms the idea that they must start a pension scheme for new employees which perhaps will be more poorly funded than the existing mine workers' pension scheme and which will provide poorer benefits? The answer is that the Government want the £14 billion.
It is simple: £14 billion goes into the Government's coffers and they are home and dry. The idea is that the Government will take the £14 billion from the mineworkers pension fund and the British Coal superannuation scheme and then pay the pensions as they fall due. At a time when we have a £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement, £14 billion is a handy little nest egg that the Government have stumbled upon. It looks

attractive. Obviously, the Government will turn logic on its head and stop the pension scheme from operating simply to get their hands on the £14 billion. That is scandalous.
What has happened to pension schemes over the past three or four years? Who has been castigated for stealing pension fund moneys? Who gets all the blame for nicking pension funds? This is a classic example of £14 billion going the same way as the Maxwell pensions. The future pension entitlements of 500,000 beneficiaries could well be jeopardised by the ending of the mineworkers pension scheme. It is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Bill Etherington: My hon. Friend has mentioned that the closed pension scheme proposed by the Government will take 50 per cent. of any surplus for the benefit of the Treasury, leaving only 50 per cent. for existing beneficiaries. The 50 per cent. offered by the Government compares poorly with the Coal Board's record of offering 70 per cent. to beneficiaries. Does my hon. Friend accept that the Coal Board, which is by no means the most generous employer, could manage to do a little better than the Government's proposals?

Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend is right. One has only to look at the existing mineworkers pension scheme. Over the past few years, British Coal has taken various contribution holidays amounting to £800 million, yet the scheme still has a viable fund of £14 billion to meet pension commitments. As I recall, the scheme has never been in deficit to the extent that the employer has had to make good the deficit.
The pension scheme is in excellent shape, yet the Government want not only to take the £14 billion fund. They automatically want 50 per cent. of any surplus. As my hon. Friend says, they want the cake, and they want to eat it as well. They want every last pound from the scheme. That is detrimental to the scheme and threatens the beneficiaries of it.
I shall refer to the duties of the coal authority.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is this the penultimate point?

Mr. Illsley: This is the penultimate point, and it relates to concessionary coal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] If Tory Members do not interrupt me, I shall conclude my remarks more quickly.
The Government have said that concessionary coal is a liability that can be passed on to the successor companies. We must ask how the successor companies will be made responsible for concessionary coal. How will they be obliged to meet their commitments to beneficiaries under the concessionary coal scheme? The Government have chosen to pass the concessionary coal scheme on to the successor companies rather than allow the Coal Authority to be responsible for it.
That plan would be far more sensible than what is envisaged. It would be far easier for the Coal Authority to take on board the arrangements for concessionary coal and to charge the successor companies for the provision of that service to serving mineworkers and to beneficiaries. Of course, if people were attracted to cash in lieu as an alternative to concessionary coal it becomes far easier, as that is only a money transaction. The provision of coal could be through the companies and could be charged back to the Coal Authority.
Many concessionaires and beneficiaries are worried that their historic right to concessionary fuel will be affected by


the Government's proposals. The transfer of rights contained in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 is unlikely to be sufficient to enable beneficiaries to continue their concessionary coal entitlement because any company can place its employees on a new contract which does not allow for concessionary fuel. That fuel could be lost to serving mineworkers.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my hon. Friend agree that a better way of protecting the existing beneficiaries of the concessionary coal scheme and of providing for the workers in the privatised industry would be to have the Coal Authority preside over the 1983 concessionary fuel agreement? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would protect both the current beneficiaries and the future work force?

Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend and I have studied the 1983 agreement long and hard. There is no reason why the Coal Authority could not have the duty to take responsibility for the concessionary coal scheme and to charge the successor companies for dealing with that scheme.
I will conclude my remarks on concessionary coal by referring to another aspect which worries a great number of serving mineworkers. Contractors within the coal industry do not receive concessionary coal, and it is open to the successor companies as part of their licensing arrangements that their employers are sub-contracted to them. In that way, the successor companies can avoid the liability for concessionary coal.
There are a number of other matters on which I had hoped to touch, and I will refer to them briefly.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes a valid point as he comes to the end of his excellent speech. Is he aware that the example he has given is happening now in the industry? Private mining companies have taken over other companies have had to take over the historical liabilities of the scheme. Those companies are now saying—quite openly, and without any threat from the Government—that they are taking away the concessionary fuel agreement. If that is happening now before privatisation, can anyone be surprised that miners who work in British Coal pits now fear that the same may happen to their concessionary fuel agreement?

Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In advance of legislation to define a particular industry, companies are ignoring the provisions of a Bill. The same thing happened with regard to Sunday trading; I will make only a passing reference to the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Employees have been placed on six-day working contracts regardless of the contents of the Bill.
I will draw my remarks to a close, as I have discussed concessionary coal. However, there are other worries which are not addressed in the Bill or by the Ways and Means resolution in relation to the coal authority. I have mentioned the insurance claims of British Coal. Will the successor companies insure their own risks or take out insurance? What will be the level of premiums? Will they be judged like other companies for employer's liability insurance? That is a big area, in view of the number of accidents which have to be compensated for in the industry.
I have been involved in that side of the industry and I am well aware that there are claims within my area of Yorkshire which go as far back as 1982. Those claims amount to around £3 million or £4 million pounds per annum in terms of compensation paid. Should the Coal Authority take responsibility for that area?
There are outstanding compensation claims. The successor companies will not welcome with open arms the liability for historical compensation claims, many of which will not be settled before the privatisation legislation is in force. Noise-induced deafness is currently soaking up much of British Coal's resources. There are also other residual compensation claims. Those points must be addressed and must be the responsibility of the Coal Authority.
Insufficient residual liabilities are to be passed to the Coal Authority to protect the public from such dangers as subsidence or for the industry to be viable after privatisation. The privatisation is untimely, unnecessary and incomplete. The Bill and the motion are confused. There are insufficient safeguards and the Bill is hurried. There are major omissions which hon. Members must consider in Standing Committee in the coming months. There will be a bleak future for pensioners and beneficiaries of the pension scheme. Above all, the future for serving mineworkers is bleak.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I will be brief, as I spoke earlier. However, I want to raise one or two points that I did not have time to mention then. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to my points and, if he cannot reply to them tonight, reply to them at an early and
I recognise that the matter is very narrow. Paragraph (a) of the resolution refers to
the making of the Coal Authority … of charges for things done in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties."— 
[Interruption.] I recognise that the House is a trifle excited about possible developments, but when the Minister's adviser has finished telling him about the latest dramatic developments, I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to my points.

Mr. Hood: Perhaps I can be helpful. I am also interested in what is happening between the Government Whip and the Minister. I heard a whisper when I was outside the Chamber a moment ago to the effect that there is a security alert outside St. Stephen's entrance. An unidentified car has been left there and the police are genuinely concerned that there might be a bomb in it. The police are worried about the possibility of a Division, as that would attract hon. Members to the House. I am sure that hon. Members will feel obliged to continue to examine the Ways and Means motion until the security alert is cleared. I am sure that that is what the Government Whip was telling the Minister.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend has done the House a great service by bringing us up to date with the latest development in the insanities of life in this city. I hope that the car belongs to a representative of one of the foreign mining firms with a bad safety record who might have heard our strictures and gone away.
In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the experience regaled to us by our former good colleague and friend, Allen McKay. When we debated subsidence a few years ago, he told us about his experience as a volunteer fireman


when he rescued two cows which had fallen into an old mine working. My serious questions on the resolution relate to the fact that my constituency, like the neighbouring constituencies of some of my colleagues, lies in the very heart of the old south Yorkshire coalfield.
There has been mining in our constituencies for 300 or 400 years. The first fatality in the mining industry in my constituency occurred around 1660. The industry is an ancient industry because several seams of coal outcrop and can be found easily in close proximity to Wath upon Dearne, where I live in my constituency in the heart of South Yorkshire. The Warren house seam, which comprises part of the coal being mined today in the Selby coalfield, outcrops at Warren house, which is about one mile from my home. It is close to the Abdy seam, which outcrops 18 in below the surface at the point where the Warren house colliery, which closed many years ago, had its first shaft. The seams bear the names of the localities where they outcrop. Within about a mile of my home there is the Newhill seam, the Meltonfield seam, the Warren House seam and the Abdy seam, all of them outcrops.
A few years ago, there was a fire in the Abdy seam and the mines drainage unit, based at the Westfield colliery site at Parkgate, had enough men to deal with it. As the industry contracted, the mines drainage unit was closed and responsibility was placed on Silverwood colliery, to which I referred in an earlier debate. That colliery may be whittled away; if it is, who will bear the responsibility and have the capacity to respond to an event such as the Abdy seam fire?
That is one of the problems that arise from contraction. Another difficulty is that we are dealing with an old industry whose problems may have their roots in events that occurred a century or more ago. Will manning in the authority be sufficient to understand and appraise such problems, and will it have the resources to organise a response to them?
Using the mines drainage unit, British Coal could respond rapidly to such problems, but many pits have closed or are to close. However, the problems arising from heritage remain. I represent an area in the heart of one of the older coalfields. Can I be assured that the problems arising from the legacy of past mining will be met by public provisions or by the authority under its obligations when that authority may have no capacity to do so?
When I was a student, I was researching the history of mining and happened to be taking photographs with a little box Brownie camera in pursuit of my thesis. In Rawmarsh, which is just a couple of miles from my home, I saw that the land had fallen in at a place where a bell-pit had operated, probably in the late 17th century. No one could prove that date because the records of a mine's workings were not collected then. Some of the mining operations in my constituency are not on official records. I shall give an illustration that is covered by the legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I do not think that places of work are covered by the resolution.

Mr. Hardy: Paragraph (a) refers to
the making by the Coal Authority …of charges for things done in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties".
I shall illustrate what I mean. About 2,000 yd from my home is the site of what was the Rockingham porcelain manufactory. The Fitzwilliam estate, which owned the

whole area, was a kind landlord to the Rockingham manufacturers, the Brameld brothers. They were given permission to mine coal in that vicinity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but it does not have a great deal to do with the subject of the debate. The hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to the resolution.

Mr. Hardy: I shall try to make the matter clear. The Coal Authority would be empowered to charge for the exercise of its responsibilities, but who will pay the charges if the pit that is responsible for the problem ceased to exist 150 or 200 years ago? [Interruption.] I should like to finish this point which you were correct to require me to explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If the pit closed 150 years ago, who will pay the charge? Who will ascertain the degree of responsibility? The problem will exist, so who will be identifiable as the person or body responsible? I do not propose to go further, but the Minister will understand that the questions that my hon. Friends and I have raised tonight will have to be answered in Standing Committee, otherwise we shall be placing an impossible responsibility on the British Coal authority arid asking it to perform tasks which are completely insoluble.

Mr. Etherington: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Hardy: Yes.

Mr. Etherington: My hon. Friend raised a vital point when he used the term "heritage" in referring to the liabilities that have been created in mining areas. He spoke about the problems of pumping and of old pits that have closed. He will obviously be aware that the position will be particularly grim in areas where no pits remain. Does he agree that it is important that the powers and duties taken on by the Coal Authority should involve the responsibility for dewatering areas where a rise in the mine water could lead to pollution and other environmental problems? It is extremely unfair that the areas which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman making a speech or an intervention? I understood it to be the latter, and interventions are supposed to be brief.

Mr. Etherington: I was following the spirit of the interventions which have been made tonight, but I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of the burden should be borne by the country rather than by the people living in the area, who have given quite enough to society?

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has put to the Minister some aspects of the problem which may not have dawned on him and given him due warning that, when we consider the relevant parts of the Bill, satisfactory explanations will have to be made in Standing Committee and on Report. I would stress that a number of noble Lords will take a deep interest in some of those matters.
The Government will have to do their homework in the next fortnight. The Bill and the manner it is being dealt with do not give us confidence that any homework is being done.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I have heard speeches from a number of Labour Members. I did not realise what good news was given from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). I must tell him immediately that I shall miss him.
I venture to think that there may be some misunderstanding on the Opposition Benches about the thrust of the motion on the Order Paper. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for his interesting historical exposition of the outcropping and its relationship with the porcelain manufacturer in his constituency. It was one of the more interesting speeches from the Opposition and I should be delighted to hear the conclusion of that story.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is on the Standing Committee.

Mr. Eggar: Then we may have many such opportunities.
A wide number of issues have been aired, some of which are relevant to the proceedings in Committee. I am sure that Opposition Members will not be surprised or offended when I say that few of them, indeed almost none, were relevant to the resolution, but that is a matter for their consciences, the Chair and the length of time they wish to detain the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central for giving me notice of some of the issues that will be raised in Committee. I am particularly interested in considering how I will deal with the cows.
Much of the debate has been about the range of the Coal Authority's duties. The resolution will, of course, permit the authority to charge for the services that it provides, but it in no way restricts the range of its duties or the services that it provides. That is a matter for the Bill, and I shall not get into a discussion on that now.
It might be helpful and avoid doubt if I outline what the resolution covers. First, it covers charges levied by the Coal Authority. The Bill enables the authority to charge for the services that it provides and a good example would be a licence application fee for services provided in the processing and consideration of an application. The aim is to set fees at a level that will enable the authority to cover its administrative costs. As the House knows, that is a well established practice for such bodies.
Secondly, the resolution covers corporation tax. The Bill contains provisions that deal with the consequences for corporation tax purposes of the transfer under restructuring schemes of property rights and liabilities to successor companies and other public sector companies. There are also provisions to deal with the subsequent taxation treatment of such transferees. The general approach follows that adopted in previous privatisations which involve statutory bodies already subject to corporation tax. Finally, the resolution covers any sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund or the national loans fund.
I hope that it has been of some use to the House to define exactly what the Ways and Means resolution covers. I am upset that we shall not be hearing any further contributions from the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central in Committee—we shall all miss him.

Mr. Greg Knight: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 56.

Division No. 77]
[12.51 a.m.


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Gillan, Cheryl


Alexander, Richard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Amess, David
Gorst, John


Arbuthnot, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Ashby, David
Hague, William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Hanley, Jeremy


Baldry, Tony
Hargreaves, Andrew


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Harris, David


Bates, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hayes, Jerry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heald, Oliver


Booth, Hartley
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boswell, Tim
Hendry, Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Bowis, John
Horam, John


Brandreth, Gyles
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hunter, Andrew


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Jack, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jenkin, Bernard


Burns, Simon
Jessel, Toby


Butterfill, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Carrington, Matthew
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Carttiss, Michael
Key, Robert


Cash, William
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Clappison, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Colvin, Michael
Knox, Sir David


Congdon, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Legg, Barry


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Luff, Peter


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Maclean, David


Devlin, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Dickens, Geoffrey
Madel, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maitland, Lady Olga


Dover, Den
Malone, Gerald


Duncan, Alan
Mans, Keith


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Marland, Paul


Dykes, Hugh
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Eggar, Tim
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Elletson, Harold
Mates, Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Milligan, Stephen


Faber, David
Mills, Iain


Fabricant, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fishburn, Dudley
Moate, Sir Roger


Forman, Nigel
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Needham, Richard


Forth, Eric
Neubert, Sir Michael


Foster, Don (Bath)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nicholls, Patrick


French, Douglas
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gale, Roger
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gallie, Phil
Norris, Steve


Gardiner, Sir George
Oppenheim, Phillip


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard






Page, Richard
Stewart, Allan


Paice, James
Streeter, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Sweeney, Walter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sykes, John


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thomason, Roy


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rendel, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Richards, Rod
Thurnham, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trend, Michael


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Trotter, Neville


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tyler, Paul


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Walden, George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wallace, James


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waterson, Nigel


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Willetts, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Sproat, Iain
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stephen, Michael
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Derek Conway.


Stem, Michael





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Leighton, Ron


Barnes, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Bell, Stuart
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cann, Jamie
McMaster, Gordon


Clapham, Michael
McWilliam, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Mahon, Alice


Clelland, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Cryer, Bob
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meale, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Michael, Alun


Dafis, Cynog
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dixon, Don
Miller, Andrew


Enright, Derek
Morley, Elliot


Etherington, Bill
Olner, William


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Foulkes, George
Pickthall, Colin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pike, Peter L.


Graham, Thomas
Pope, Greg


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hall, Mike
Simpson, Alan


Hanson, David
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Hood, Jimmy
Turner, Dennis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wise, Audrey


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wray, Jimmy


Illsley, Eric



Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Jim Dowd.


Kilfoyle, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 60.

Division No. 78]
[1.02 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Ashby, David
Bates, Michael





Beresford, Sir Paul
Horam, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Booth, Hartley
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Boswell, Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Bowden, Andrew
Hunter, Andrew


Bowis, John
Jack, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Jenkin, Bernard


Brazier, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Bright, Graham
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Key, Robert


Burns, Simon
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butterfill, John
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Carrington, Matthew
Knox, Sir David


Carttiss, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Cash, William
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Chapman, Sydney
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Clappison, James
Legg, Barry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Colvin, Michael
Lidington, David


Congdon, David
Luff, Peter


Conway, Derek
Maclean, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Madel, Sir David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Maitland, Lady Olga


Cran, James
Malone, Gerald


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Mans, Keith


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Marland, Paul


Day, Stephen
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Devlin, Tim
Mates, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Dover, Den
Merchant, Piers


Duncan, Alan
Milligan, Stephen


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Mills, Iain


Dykes, Hugh
Moate, Sir Roger


Eggar, Tim
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Elletson, Harold
Moss, Malcolm


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Needham, Richard


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Nicholls, Patrick


Faber, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fishburn, Dudley
Norris, Steve


Forman, Nigel
Oppenheim, Phillip


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Eric
Page, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Paice, James


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Patnick, Irvine


French, Douglas
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gale, Roger
Pawsey, James


Gallie, Phil
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gardiner, Sir George
Pickles, Eric


Garnier, Edward
Powell, William (Corby)


Gillan, Cheryl
Rathbone, Tim


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Rendel, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Richards, Rod


Gorst, John
Robathan, Andrew


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hague, William
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hanley, Jeremy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Sackville, Tom


Harris, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hawkins, Nick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hawksley, Warren
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hayes, Jerry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Heald, Oliver
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sims, Roger


Hendry, Charles
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)




NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Leighton, Ron


Barnes, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Bell, Stuart
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McMaster, Gordon


Cann, Jamie
McWilliam, John


Clapham, Michael
Mahon, Alice


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Clelland, David
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Michael, Alun


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Miller, Andrew


Dafis, Cynog
Morley, Elliot


Dixon, Don
Olner, William


Enright, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Etherington, Bill
Pickthall, Colin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Foulkes, George
Pope, Greg


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Graham, Thomas
Simpson, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hall, Mike
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Hanson, David
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Hardy, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Vaz, Keith


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wise, Audrey


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wray, Jimmy


Illsley, Eric



Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Jim Dowd.


Kilfoyle, Peter

Spencer, Sir Derek
Trotter, Neville


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tyler, Paul


Spink, Dr Robert
Viggers, Peter


Sproat, Iain
Walden, George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wallace, James


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waller, Gary


Stephen, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Ray


Sweeney, Walter
Whittingdale, John


Sykes, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thomason, Roy
Willetts, David


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter



Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Trend, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Coal Industry Bill, it is expedient to authorize —

(a) the making by the Coal Authority established by the Act of charges for things done in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties;
(b) the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions relating to the taxation of persons to and from whom property, rights and liabilities are transferred in accordance with schemes under the Act; and
(c) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the
National Loans Fund.

Orders of the Day — Agriculture

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2901) dated 24th November 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
This scheme came into existence after a major review of help to farmers in 1988. As a result, the conclusions reached reflected the need at that time to introduce assistance for farmers to help curb production. It was decided that aid should be switched away from investments intended to increase productive capacity and that the benefits to farmers should be in the form of help with conservation schemes and schemes to benefit the environment.
To that end, I must start by making some announcements about improvements to the farm and conservation grant scheme [Interruption.] We have decided to provide additional assistance in three ways. First, through grants to help farmers with the costs of capital works to open up access to farmland. They will underpin further assistance because we shall return to the House to seek its approval shortly on matters connected with access and environmentally sensitive areas. Also we have decided to give grant aid to people in the poultry industry to deal with poultry waste, just as grants are available for assistance with other livestock wastes. Finally, we want to extend the life of the special package of grants for the Scilly Isles offered under the farm and conservation grant scheme for a further year while we consider the longer term needs of growers on the islands. I hope that the House will agree that those are three small but important ways in which we are trying to develop the
I shall now mention the rates of grant. As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said from a sedentary position, there are reductions. However, those measures have to be viewed in the context of the overall position of farm incomes. Farmers in the dairy sector have benefited significantly, especially from the on-farm schemes to deal with waste, and it is perhaps worth reflecting that in recent years dairy incomes have steadily increased. In 1991–92 incomes increased by 11 per cent. I expect that last year's 1992–93 forecast of a 19 per cent. increase in that sector will be fully realised.
In the beef sector there have been increases in incomes and in beef special premium and suckler cow premium. Those have been substantially increased and will increase further up to 1995.
Finally, for those farmers in the less favoured areas, total direct subsidies will be worth about £550 million in 1994.

Mr. John Greenway: rose—

Mr. Jack: will hon. Friend allow me to make a little progress? I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily.
The fact that grant rates under the scheme are to be reduced should also be viewed in the context of what that will mean in terms of the expenditure next year on the farm and conservation grant scheme. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that that will amount to about £27 million —only £2 million less than the peak


expenditure in this financial year. That indicates the continuity of help that we are providing under the scheme, because much help is in the financial pipeline and is reflected in that expenditure.

Mr. Greenway: Perhaps it is as well that my hon. Friend continued a little longer, because he has just mentioned the point that I wanted to discuss. He is right to say that many dairy farmers have benefited enormously from the recovery in incomes and from the grant while it was 50 per cent. It is fair to say that those farmers who have money in the bank have made use of that. The farmers who now have schemes in the pipeline are the poorer farmers, who will lose out as a result of the cut to 25 per cent. Does the Minister think that there is a case for saying that those farmers who had a scheme at the planning stage and ready to go ahead should receive the 50 per cent. anyway?

Mr. Jack: Those farmers who submitted acceptable plans prior to 1 December 1993 will receive the old grant rate, as witnessed by the amount of money that I said was already in the pipeline.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Jack: I hope that hon. Members will allow me to make a little more progress.
The rate of grant, such as it was at 50 per cent., was above the European Community then maximum level of 35 per cent. We did that as a pump-priming exercise, to encourage farmers to take up that important opportunity to deal with farm wastes. It is worth pointing out that we have already paid out more than £115 million in grant in the four and a half years since the scheme was announced in February 1989. At that time, the intention was to spend about £50 million only in the first three years of the scheme.
To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), about 9,000 farmers have already taken advantage of the scheme. Its success is demonstrated by the fact that in 1989 nearly 600 serious pollution incidents were attributed to agriculture. The figure in 1992 was less than 200.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Very many farmers still have not been able to carry out works in relation to pollution. I am worried that some of them, because they cannot afford the costs, will sell their quota. To all intents and purposes, that will mean that the farms they occupy will cease to be viable units. That will lead to further fragmentation and amalgamation of units, and make it that much more difficult for young people to enter the industry because the farm sizes will constantly increase as a consequence.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman might have had a point if I had been saying that we intended to end the grant scheme altogether. But I have described a remarkable take-up; 9,000 farmers have participated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned young people coming into farming, and I can think of no finer way to respond to that point than to remind him that the proposal to reform tenancy law has come from the Government.
As I was saying, the grant will continue, but at the rate of 25 per cent. The other area affected by the proposals is conservation, involving hedges, stone walls and traditional buildings.

Mr. James Wallace: rose—

Mr. Jack: Before I take the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the farm conservation grant scheme came into existence at a time when many of the environmental schemes that have subsequently been developed were at a very early stage.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has told us that there will be a reduction in the grant. Is he aware that already farmers in my constituency have told me that, because of that reduction, they do not intend to proceed with projects that they had hoped to undertake? Will he confirm that, under the current regulations, if certain action is not taken on waste disposal, it will be possible for environmental health officers to close a farm down? Against such a background, how is it possible to justify cuts that are stopping investments necessary for environmental and even for statutory reasons?

Mr. Jack: The fact that I can say that 9,000 farmers have already decided to minimise their risk of being penalised for pollution by taking up the grant shows me how aware the farming community is. I recently visited a farm in Cumbria where a substantial amount of work had been completed and more plans were in the pipeline. The people there were glad of the assistance, which had helped them to modernise and improve their farm. I saw no evidence that they intended to diminish their attempts in that direction, taking advantage of the scheme.

Mr. Peter Hardy: rose—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Jack: I want to make progress. Perhaps I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) in a moment.
In connection with the conservation and environmental aspects of the grants, I have already told the House that the scheme was introduced when other schemes, such as that designating environmentally sensitive areas, were in their infancy. In January 1993, six new environmentally sensitive areas were established, and six more are expected to be launched in March. By the year 1996–97, expenditure in the United Kingdom on such areas, which provides assistance for many of the types of scheme covered by the farm and conservation grant scheme, will total about £63 million. There will also be benefits in terms of farm conservation activity from parts of the agri-environment package, details of whose timetabling and introduction we shall announce later this year.
The House should also take into account the fact that the Department of the Environment has a budget of £105 million to deal with schemes such as the Countryside Commission's countryside stewardship scheme, the hedgerow incentive scheme and the work undertaken by English Nature. All of those are complementary to the work of the farm and conservation grant scheme in connection with hedges, stone walls and traditional buildings.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned hedges and traditional stone walls. Surely it is more important to spend money on those, especially in our part of the world, than on encouraging access to the hideous set-aside land.

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the idea of the typical landscape—in Cumbria and the


north-west, for example. That is the aspect that I am discussing. As I explained, in addition to our farm and conservation grant scheme, which will continue to provide assistance for such work, a range of other schemes funded by the Department of the Environment will also enable similar work to be carried on. Those complementary schemes show why it is justifiable in our scheme for us to reduce the grant rates in that area.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jack: I want to come to a conclusion, as many other hon. Members want to speak and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to do so.
The third element in the grant scheme, which is coming to an end, deals with matters connected with horticulture. It is a matter of sadness to me as I made my living in the horticultural business before coming into the House. Although there was help for horticultural buildings, especially glasshouses and modernisation grants for orchards, less than 9 per cent. of eligible holdings took up the orchard replanting grant and less than 4 per cent. took up the greenhouse replacement grant.
Clearly, much work needs to be done in that area and I can assure the House that I shall take into account the problem with grant schemes in the work that I am undertaking to consider horticulture as a whole.
I commend the motion to the House and I hope that hon. Members will understand that, on the Conservative Benches, there is no diminution in our wish to provide assistance to farmers, in our effectiveness in dealing with farm waste, in the commitment of the Government to provide funding for environmental concerns and in the complementarity between schemes from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and those from other Government Departments.

Mr. Elliot Morley: There are parts of the supplementary estimates which we on the Labour Benches welcome. Those are the parts that the Minister has rightly outlined: grants for access, changes in provisions concerning poultry waste and the extension of support for the Isles of Scilly.
However, overall, the statutory instrument is a major blow to the farming community. It represents substantial cuts in environmental and conservation management. Unless the Minister will give some indication that he is prepared to take the statutory instrument away and consider it again, we shall have no alternative but to vote against it, because the changes are not to the advantage of the farming community, nor do they meet a number of commitments that the Government have made, as I shall outline.
The changes are a double blow. They are not only a direct blow to the farming community because of the loss of capital grants, but a blow to the wider issue of protecting and managing our countryside. I remind the House that the intentions of the scheme, as printed in the foreword of the original farm conservation grant scheme handbook were as follows:
The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme is designed to help farmers maintain efficient farming systems while also meeting the often heavy cost of combating pollution and conserving the countryside and its wildlife. The scheme focuses

on those investments which cut costs by updating existing resources and those which help to achieve good countryside management. A special priority of the scheme is to help farmers install and improve waste handling facilities to avoid the risk of pollution.
I am sure that those are worthy aims, which the whole House should fully support. There is a shift in support payments for such objectives and such schemes which are exactly the kind to which we in the Labour party give high priority. We want to see the large amounts of public money being diverted towards such aspects of the CAP.
The scheme is comparatively modest in comparison with the total sums of available agricultural support. The scheme totals £74 million this year. To put that in perspective, it is well below 10 per cent. of the £840 million spent on set-aside and the arable payments scheme. Even though the scheme is modest, grants for conservation. schemes are to be cut from 50 per cent. to 30 per cent. in less favoured areas, and from 40 per cent. to 25 per cent. elsewhere.
Capital grants for the handling, storing and treating of waste are to be cut from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. Grants for the repair and reinstatement of traditional farm buildings are to be cut from 35 per cent. to 25 per cent. in less-favoured areas and to 20 per cent. in other areas. It is estimated that those cuts will bring about savings of about £12 million in the current year. I contrast that with total Government spending of £2·5 billion on the CAP in the current year. Such comparisons put into perspective the amount being spent on conservation management.
The National Farmers Union parliamentary land use and environment committee this morning—

Mr. Tim Devlin: Yesterday morning.

Mr. Morley>: Not according to the parliamentary day.
That committee pointed out that the great advantage of such a scheme is that it is available to the whole country and that, unlike schemes such as environmentally sensitive areas, valuable though they are, it applies to the 85 per cent. of the countryside outside less favoured areas and environmentally sensitive areas. Such cuts, therefore, are detrimental to the whole countryside.
The scheme can be said to have been successful, unlike many agricultural support schemes. There has been a good take-up, and spending on waste handling facilities in particular has increased from £64,000 in 1989, to a peak of £23·4 million in 1991–92, and to £21·1 million in 1992–93. That demonstrates the tremendous investment that has been made in the farming community to deal with the problems of agricultural waste and its potential for polluting waterways
.
Cuts in grant are a major blow to the livestock sector and they will affect the investment plans that many farmers, particularly those who do not have large sums of money available to them, have been planning. Of course, they have a knock-on effect on the environment and on jobs.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend comment on the likely adverse effect on watercourses of cutting grants to subsidise the treatment of waste? According to a recent report from the National Rivers Authority, in Wales the number of pollution incidents, from farms in particular, has increased alarmingly over the past few years.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. Over the years, agricultural run-offs have accounted for a large proportion of pollution incidents in waterways. There has been a recent reduction, but that is a tribute to the scheme and it is a reason why the scheme should not be cut when there are tangible gains in capital grants to deal with potential pollution problems.
It is worth raising a query which was referred to me by the Country Landowners Association, which shares my concern about the impact of cuts in grant. If capital grants for livestock waste are to be reduced, will the Government consider diverting some resources into grant-aiding the separation of clean and dirty water on livestock farms? That would reduce the volume of muck to be disposed of and it would also help the farmer and the environment. Is it possible to divert resources to such a purpose?
Apart from livestock waste, the grants have helped greatly in respect of environmental features such as shelter belts, trees for shading stock, the enclosure of grazed woodlands, traditional field boundaries, bracken control, the regeneration of heather and grass moorland, and the repair and reinstatement of traditional buildings. Again, the House will agree that those are important objectives and that they deserve support in terms of cuntryside management.
I shall focus on traditional field boundaries. I refer, of course, to hedges and dry-stone walls. Both features of the agricultural landscape are attractive, functional and important conservation features.
The loss of grant assistance for the reinstatement of hedges is a serious blow. Indeed, a recent Government survey revealed that there was a net loss of 23 per cent. of hedgerows between 1984 and 1990 and a substantial increase in derelict hedges because of a lack of management.
I wonder how the cut in grant for landscape features such as hedgerows squares with the Government's manifesto pledge to introduce legislation to protect hedgerows. What has happened to that pledge? Is it yet another broken promise to add to a litany of broken promises? Is the Minister prepared to urge his counterpart in the Department of the Environment to introduce the legislation which was promised many years ago and which is very necessary? Many miles of hedgerow continue to be lost or destroyed. Indeed, there is a case for increasing the amount of grant available for hedgerow planting, rather than decreasing it, as the statutory instrument does.
A measure for features such as hedgerows is too important to be left to the private Bill procedure, although I know that hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), have campaigned for a long time for such legislation. We had a private Bill on hedgerow protection. I regret that Tory Members wrecked it by talking it out and ensuring that it did not get on the statute book. If they continue to use such wrecking tactics, the Government need to introduce proper legislation to meet their manifesto promise.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Although I am in favour of hedges, there were certain disadvantages to the private Bill. It would have put the power into the hands of local authorities, which often do not know much about farming. I would rather have the power to deal with hedges with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the farmers themselves but not with local authorities.

Mr. Morley: Obviously, there is an argument about the detail of the Bill. But dealing with hedgerows in terms of planning was a logical way forward. The Bill was supported by Ministers. If they think that the way forward is to introduce hedgerow legislation as part of planning controls—of course, they drafted the detail of the Bill—I assume that they think that it is the best way to proceed. Although the hon. Lady has her disagreements, I am sure she would agree that we do not need this statutory instrument.
The introduction of legislation is the right way forward, although we could argue about how it would work. I still think that it is important for the Government to give hedgerow protection some priority and to ensure that they abide by their commitment. Certainly, they do not abide by that commitment in this statutory instrument.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England rightly argues that what we need in terms of agricultural policy is an increase in countryside management and the support that goes with it. As for dry-stone walls as a field boundary, the CPRE refers to surveys which show that there has been a 10 per cent. reduction in the amount of dry-stone walling on agricultural land. Of course, such cuts do not impact simply in terms of conservation features and conservation management: they also impact on jobs in the rural economy.
Many people are trying to acquire new skills, or relearn old skills, in terms of hedge laying, tree planting and rebuilding dry-stone walls. Indeed, a colleague of mine is encouraging the reinstatement of dry-stone walls on his farm. He told me that the person who is doing the work has taken on an apprentice to learn the skill. That work is supported by the grants. I wonder how many people will lose their jobs and their income as a result of the cuts in grant. Such grants would otherwise have encouraged the reinstatement of these important features.
The same applies to the renovation of traditional farm buildings. In many parts of the country farm buildings are an important part of the landscape, and not only is their reinstatement valuable as a landscape feature but there are employment opportunities for acquiring and implementing traditional skills which are much needed within the rural economy.
I do not see how cuts of this kind will benefit the rural economy or rural communities. Not only will the cuts have an impact in terms of conservation features, but they are particularly badly timed in terms of the Government's commitment to publish a biodiversity plan which I understand will be published on 26 January. I wonder how the Minister can argue that the cut can meet the Rio commitments made by the Prime Minister for meeting biodiversity. Is that yet another broken promise which we can add to the list of commitments which have been given?
Is the Minister aware that a survey published last November by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology underlined the losses to wildlife species and the importance of hedges in maintaining their populations?

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the Cotswolds, where there is a large proportion of stone walls, those stone walls are disappearing because they are simply too expensive to keep up? The hon. Gentleman quoted from a report by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. The reason why hedgerows are disappearing is simply because they are becoming derelict.
The proposed Hedgerows Bill would have had no effect on that. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends wish to keep up such landscape features, the only way is to have a proper management plan under such schemes as the countryside stewardship scheme. There is considerably more money available for that scheme from the Department of the Environment and the hedgerow incentive scheme from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food than is available under the farm conservation grant scheme, which is merely—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This sounds like a speech, and not an intervention. Interventions are supposed to be brief.

Mr. Morley: I have put in perspective the sums which are available for farm conservation grants. Those sums are tiny in terms of the global commitment made by this country on the common agriculture policy.
I say to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that it is true that it is expensive to maintain and repair stone walls. It is often difficult to find people with the skills to do so. However, cuts in grants will do nothing to assist hedgerow maintenance. I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman on such issues if he had not been one of the main culprits in wrecking the Hedgerows Bill which was put before Parliament. I should have thought that, if he wants to be taken seriously on such matters as landscape protection, he should make sure that there was a proper facility or provision to protect such things as hedgerows, rather than wrecking the Bill in the way he did.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The simple reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) pointed out, was that we did not want local authorities which do not understand about growing hedgerows interfering and telling farmers what to do. That would not have been the right way forward and would have been bureaucratic.
The hon. Gentleman criticises me personally for wrecking the Bill. I have a record of a net gain of one mile of hedgerows on my farm.

Mr. Morley: I return to the original point that Ministers drafted the Bill, and they felt that local authority planning was the correct mechanism. While I do not doubt his commitments, that is no excuse for wrecking a Bill which many people were anxious to see put on the statute book.
I return to the issue of the impact of biodiversity. Is the Minister aware of the detailed farmland bird census which was carried out by the British Trust for Ornithology? That census demonstrated the dramatic losses of many of the once-common farmland birds. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds calculated that the numbers of grey partridges have fallen by 73 per cent. during the last 20 years. If the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) were here, he would share my concern at the decline of a species such as the grey partridge.
The measure also includes grants for heath and moorland reinstatement. Heath and moorland are vital to threatened species like the sand lizard, which is a red data book species. The proposals to reinstate habitat have been cut by the statutory instrument. How does all that square with the Rio declaration which the Prime Minister signed

and which supports the biodiversity convention and protection when the Government are taking measures to cut the kind of support systems that are protecting biodiversity?
We need clear objectives and targets in terms of protecting species and habitat. How can cuts in a measure like this achieve that? Did MAFF consult the Department of the Environment about the statutory instrument? Will the DOE set targets for habitat protection and restoration? How will the cuts allow the Government to comply with the European Union habitat directive? That is particularly important, as the Government are already on record as saying that they will meet the requirements of the habitat directive precisely through measures of this kind.
If the Government are going to cut the farm conservation grant scheme, how will they meet the commitments that they have already made with respect to the habitat directive? Is that yet another broken promise to add to the list? Those issues, in addition to conservation and the impact on farmers, are important in terms of the overall commitment and responsibility that the Government should have for our countryside and environment.
The welcome aspect of the statutory instrument relates to the grants for access to agricultural land. The Opposition have been arguing for that for sometime. We welcome the grants for the provision of gates, stiles and footbridges. We believe that encouraging farmers to allow public access to their land is a valid use of public money. We hope that that will succeed. It is therefore a matter of regret that such positive measures are outweighed in the measure by the negative impact of the overall cuts in grant.
Given the overall reduction, will the Minister confirm what I understood from his opening remarks? Are the new grants for support for access to come from the budget for the farm conservation grant scheme or has there been diversion from the agri-environment programme to fund the improvement? I am working on the assumption that that is not the case because the Minister said that there is to be a further announcement about the agri-environment package and support for public access. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that we are not talking about diversion from the agri-environment package.
That point is important because the agri-environment package is not exactly a generous scheme. A joint report by the CPRE, the Ramblers Association and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation demonstrated that green payments to farmers, including environmentally sensitive area schemes, amounted to £2·31 per hectare on a United Kingdom average, while set-aside and arable payments amounted to a somewhat larger £45·39 per hectare on a United Kingdom average. That is a considerable difference, particularly in terms of value of money.
There is a great deal more value for money with regard to conservation and environmental support as part of agri-environment packages than simply paying farmers to keep land in set-aside. Farmers in my constituency share that view. They would rather see public money being spent on positive schemes which the public can appreciate and see than on the negative set-aside scheme.
Cutting environmental payments under the farm and conservation scheme while £840 million is spent on set-aside and arable aids, shows lack of commitment to environmental management. The cuts will produce minimal savings this year and will undermine a good value-for-money scheme. They will also undermine the


ability of farmers to protect and manage our countryside, and they breach the Government's commitment to the habitat directive and the biodiversity treaty. I urge the Government to withdraw the instrument and to think again on the matter. If they do not, they will stand accused of breaking yet more promises, adding to a record that is already littered with broken promises, and of a shift away from responsible management and protection of our countryside rather than giving the commitment and support that our farmers and our countryside deserve.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I am glad to take part in the debate. As a farmer, I do not think that, in a time of economic stringency, it is at all unreasonable to reduce grants. Grants still remain to spur the planting of hedges and shelter belts, and farmers are increasingly likely and increasingly encouraged to do that off their own bat. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) rather ruined his speech by exaggerating the effect that such fairly modest cuts would have on the countryside. I am sorry that he lost his balance.
When drainage grant was about 20 per cent. lower than what is proposed in the legislation, it was a spur for many farmers to continue with drainage schemes. Moreover, it is in the general interest of farming to be weaned from grants. We do not want to be the one sector of society that is continually encouraged and fed by grants to do what is fairly natural work in the maintenance and stewardship of the countryside.
I understand the reasons for the measure. It is necessary for farmers to share the general stringency that the rest of the country faces at a time when we are seeking to reduce public expenditure. The concern that has been generated about the reduction in grants is understandable because we all want to conserve and increase the wildlife value of our countryside. It is certainly not right to be complacent about what is being done to make the countryside a better place for wildlife and to rebuild some of the depleted stocks.
I am convinced that we can and should do more, and this is a unique opportunity to do that. The obvious way is not through grants and small measures of the type that we have been debating, but by using the vast sums that are available under the set-aside scheme. As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, last year farmers were paid about £840 million to set aside nearly 1·5 million acres. We are speaking of sums that are 100 times more than the relatively modest cuts in the measure.
Few of us who have anything at all to do with the land are pleased by the set-aside regime. We certainly feel that the existing arrangement is of little benefit to wildlife. In addition, the management of the set-aside regime is costly and, as a farmer, I do not think that it improves the fertility of the land or assists in growing crops in the following year. Under the set-aside regime, there is a massive opportunity and a real challenge to improve our efforts to help conservation and wildlife. We have a real opportunity to make set-aside of lasting benefit to conservation.
One such measure that we are moving towards is permanent set-aside. Set-aside along the edge of a wood can be of permanent benefit to wildlife.
We also have to accept that, to achieve real benefit to wildlife, we have to manage some areas. Where we manage the countryside, we increase the benefit of that countryside to wildlife. Let me give two examples. Britain has a

shortage of lowland heathland. The reinstatement of heathland requires a low level of grazing. It would be valuable if we could secure that.
If we want really good permanent pasture, we need a regime of mowing for hay at a late date without adding fertiliser. If we could secure through the Common Market some measures by we which could have limited cropping from land, the advantages to conservation and wildlife would be huge. That is what we want, and it would produce real value for money from the huge sums being spent.
If we could secure the proper management of set-aside combined with growing areas under the environmentally sensitive area scheme and many other schemes—for example, the management of ancient woodlands—we could continue making real efforts to reconstruct valuable habitats on a grand scale and we would be spending the huge sums of available money effectively.
In conclusion, I certainly accept the modest measures proposed this evening. We should be weaned from grants and contribute to the national economic efforts, but I cannot accept our continuing failure to make set-aside work creatively for conservation. I should like the Government to be absolutely certain that the measures we take with other members of the European Community in the next few years ensure that set-aside land is of lasting benefit to the environment.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), because he has shown yet again that there is a groundswell in the House—an increasing tendency to realise that set-aside is central to the Government's problems with agriculture and with the misinvestment of resources in agricultural development.
When the former Minister came back to the House waving a piece of paper and saying that he had achieved peace in our time, he claimed reduced surpluses, reduced costs and reduced bureaucracy as major benefits from his common agricultural policy reform package. Initially, the Liberal Democrats were alone in the House in taking the view that the dependence on set-aside, especially rotational set-aside, would be the seed of the decline of the whole policy. In fact, it had built into it its own calamitous conclusion.
I very much endorse the views expressed this evening about the way in which, sadly, the cuts that the Treasury has made in agricultural support have been on the wrong targets. That has to be the message that hon. Members on both sides of the House have to express to the Government.
I hope that the Minister will be able to explain to us, if he speaks again tonight, how precisely the target has been selected out of all the targets that could have been selected by the Treasury in making cuts, when there is such a clear view among the agriculturists, conservationists, the general public, taxpayers and Members of the House that the real target should be the huge sums being paid in arable area compensation for rotational set-aside.
In the meantime, as hon. Members have already said, there is an element of double-speak or double standards in that the proposals are being brought forward at this juncture, when the Department of the Environment is to publish its biodiversity action plan within a few days. I hope that the Government will reiterate their support for


the European Union habitats directive. How could any Government square the reiteration of that support with those cuts and those proposed targets for economies?
The National Farmers Union has made it clear that the great value of the farm and conservation grant scheme is that it is generally applied, extremely popular, nationwide and comprehensive and all farms are eligible, wherever they are. It is not selective and does not depend on lines on maps. Surely that is the way to proceed if we want all farmers—not only a few in particular areas—to sign up to wider environmental and community benefits.
The organisations that brief hon. Members of, I am sure, all parties have emphasised the fact that the take-up of the scheme has been unique in that it has been so cost-effective and has led to real improvements. The most popular take-up has been for investment in waste handling facilities and the scheme has been one of the best run of any Government. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, the people who now wish to benefit from such schemes were not making large profits before and therefore had no ready cash to invest. We are therefore penalising the least well-off—in the dairy sector in particular—when it should be the other way around.
What message are the Government sending to the industry and to the country? In recent weeks, I have been to the borders of Scotland, to North Yorkshire and Somerset and, of course, to Cornwall, to meet dairy farmers. I do not think that the hon. Member for Lincoln has as many dairy farmers in the city of Lincoln as I have in my constituency. The diary farmers in particular know only too well that the scheme is of practical help to them. It is a deplorable day when cuts are made simply because the Treasury finds it easy to make them. That is the real reason for the cuts; it is not because the Minister felt he had found the correct target for reductions in costs.
On-farm waste management is a major problem, as has already been mentioned. Of course there is room for significant improvement. The National Rivers Authority and other organisations outside government have emphasised that fact and, in the interests of a long-term environmental policy, it is extremely important that there continue to be improvements.
It is significant that the grant scheme makes no great difference to the profitability of an individual holding; indeed, it may increase costs on the farm. Nor does it make any difference to the productivity of a particular enterprise. There is no benefit to the farmer. The benefit is to the environment and the wider community and, one hopes, to the Government's long-term environmental objectives.
The Minister referred to increasing income. What we are discussing is not a matter of income. It is not intended to help the farmer to make a bigger profit. Indeed, it cannot do so, but it can achieve other benefits for the community and the environment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that the NRA can effectively close a dairy farm enterprise if it does not meet the appropriate waste management standards. The scheme is not merely a voluntary addition to help farmers do a better job, or make a bigger profit, but has much wider advantages.
I remind the Minister that it was his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), who is now the Patronage Secretary—that shows how far the Minister can

rise if he plays his cards right—who introduced the scheme in 1989 when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. On 14 February 1989, which is Valentine's day—I am sure that that was appropriate—he said:
Concern to protect and enhance the beauty and wildlife variety of our countryside is growing all the time. Increasingly, too, the public look to the farmer as the guardian of the countryside … What is less often recognised … is the extra cost this can impose on the farmer.
That is the point—it is an extra cost, not an advantage, to the farmer to introduce such a scheme. He continued:
Another important priority under the … scheme deals with the problems of pollution from farm effluent. The pressure on farmers to clean up their act is acute, and rightly so.
He added:
It also shows our determination to target assistance where it can do most good, both for the farmer and for the community as a whole."—[Official Report, 14 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 269–70.]
Where is that promise and that targeting tonight? Cuts has been made precisely where, on that occasion, the then Parliamentary Secretary identified a need to expand and increase support.
What has changed in those few years? Do the Government no longer believe that protecting the environment is important? Were their claims of sustainability so much cant? Is this measure just a sop to the Treasury because the environment does not really matter when the chips are down?
Do the present ministerial team share the right hon. Gentleman's view that the extra cost should not fall on the farmer? Today's targeting is most curious in relation to the priorities set at the Rio summit, the European Union habitats directive and the terms in which the scheme was introduced in 1989.
The Government's own 1990 countryside survey, published just a few months ago, reported the decline of habitats over the past 12 years—including the most valuable in this country. I refer to hedgerows and to upland grass and moorland—in both of which I am extremely interested, given the part of the United Kingdom that I represent.
Those habitats were precisely targeted, and rightly so, under the farm and conservation grant scheme, on the best possible advice to the Ministry. However, during the 12 years of the survey, 23 per cent. of hedgerows were lost, in addition to the considerable losses that occurred in previous eras. Up to 8 per cent. of upland grass and moorland was also lost.
Those areas are of huge value in terms of not only natural habitat but the upland landscape available to be enjoyed by people who do not live there all year but who visit from all parts of the world to see a man-made but nevertheless extremely attractive landscape—so there is even tourist value in work done under the scheme.
The survey identified an increase in derelict hedges, probably because of declining hedge management. Mention was made tonight of skills being lost because the grant is not enough—not because it is too much or too generous. Surely no one suggests that the scheme has outlived its usefulness. The reverse is true. Hedgerows, stone walls and Cornish banks—each area has its landscape vocabulary—are all part of the fabric of our countryside. The survey confirmed that they are still deteriorating. That is surely a reason for increasing the amount.
The Minister made three small announcements this evening. We heard nothing dramatic about poultry waste.
Although I am delighted—I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) shares my interest—that the Isles of Scilly scheme will continue, that announcement was not so dramatic that we can all tear up our Order Papers and go home.
The access provisions are not a new announcement. On 10 August 1993, the Department announced that it would introduce funding for public access as part of its commitment to the European Union's agricultural environment programme. We cannot have double booking—that support cannot appear twice in the accounts. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will press the Minister to say this evening whether that is new money or whether it has simply been recycled—already announced, but presented by the Minister this evening as new by a sleight of hand.
The scheme's objectives are most worth while and deserve maximum support, but we want to ensure not only payment for existing rights of way but increased public access as part of the bargain, otherwise, we shall be paying for something that we already have. There is no value in that.
As the hon. Member for Lincoln pointed out eloquently, what is so galling is the contrast between the huge sums being spent on arable set-aside, particularly rotational set-aside—which he rightly identified as having limited conservation benefits—and this cut. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has pointed out that the cut represents 0·08 per cent.—less than 1 per cent.—of the total amount that will be invested in organised dereliction. Rotational set-aside, after all, is simply managed dereliction.
Rotational set-aside is in danger of becoming a bottomless pit into which increasingly large area payments will be thrown, bringing the whole of farming into disrepute. Already, parts of the tabloid press—perhaps not so ostentatiously in recent weeks; they have had other interests—have identified as scandalous the huge sums paid to large landowners in the eastern part of England. This will increasingly become a scandal, and the taxpayer will not put up with it in the long term. It simply is not sustainable politically. That would be so even if it were sustainable in other regards, which it clearly is not.
In the last year, 550,000 hectares of farmland in the United Kingdom were left idle, with virtually no environmental or social benefits. The Government's proposals will bring the CAP to its knees. It has already been brought into disrepute.
As the arable area scheme is now constituted, it is clearly doing great damage to the reputation of the farming community, and to the taxpayer. It appears that it is doing some good only to the largest landowners and the largest farmers. No doubt they used to be Conservative supporters. I do not know whether that is still the case. In the meantime, the Minister has suffered a severe defeat.
Let us be clear about this: these are not the Minister's proposals. I give her credit for at least having the good judgment to know that this is not the right target for cuts, although it may be a soft target. The statutory instrument involved has the Treasury's fingerprints all over it; it is nothing to do with the priorities of the Minister and her team. I have too much respect for them to believe otherwise. The Treasury has been allowed to savage the most valuable and vulnerable elements in the Minister's budget. No flights of fancy can disguise the fact that this represents a major defeat.
That defeat concerns not only the Minister; the real victims will be the farmers who really want to plan, in the long term, for the conservation of their land, as good stewards of that land. This is a defeat for the countryside.

Mr. David Harris: I trust that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks too closely; others wish to speak. Let me say, however, that I felt that a good speech was spoilt by his conclusions. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) put the matter into perspective. I think that it was a bit over the top to talk about a "savaging" policy. I am, however, grateful for his reference to the Isles of Scilly, which are in my constituency.
I fear that I have spent a good deal of my time in the House criticising my hon. Friend and his predecessor over their responsibility for fishing matters. I am delighted to be able to congratulate my hon. Friend on the announcement about the Isles of Scilly.
As one of your predecessors knows, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Lord Dean spends all his summer holidays there —the fabric of the islands is composed of small holdings. They are not farms in the accepted sense; they are minute holdings, but they make the landscape for the inhabited islands. In recent years, I—along with others—have been increasingly concerned about the future of some of those holdings. The structure of agriculture and horticulture on the islands has come under trememdous pressure from economic forces and several other factors. One of those factors was cold weather and violent storms some years ago, which destroyed the hedge pattern of the islands.
I was pleased to accompany my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) to the islands when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He announced the application of the scheme to the islands with particular reference to replacing some of the hedges. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) is saying. That is probably just as well. I am sure that his comments are not helpful.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Suffolk, Coastal announced the scheme to give aid to the islanders Io replace hedges and to improve and store bulbs. That has been a valuable scheme. I am sorry that, as a result of economic factors, there has not been the take-up for which some of us hoped. It is right, and greatly appreciated, that my hon. Friend the Minister has announced tonight that the scheme will be extended for another year while longer-term measures are considered. That will be welcomed by farmers on the Isles of Scilly and particularly by Mrs. Penny Rogers, the splendid secretary of the National Farmers Union branch. She is a grower, as are all her members of her family. She has worked extremely hard on behalf of all those involved in horticulture and agriculture on the islands. She has been in constant contact with me about the scheme and other measures that are needed.
My concluding remarks refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) said. He was right to say that responsible farmers do not expect to survive or depend on grants. That is perhaps the fundamental difference between Conservative Members and some Opposition Members on the point. There is a


place for grants where encouragement is needed and where they are necessary to carry out certain preservation works. The Isles of Scilly certainly come into that category.
Isles of Scilly farmers are extremely independent. They do not expect to survive on grants. They have done an enormous amount to help themselves, particularly in marketing the daffodil crop. It always gives me enormous pleasure to see Sol d'Or daffodils being sold at Westminster tube station. A year ago, when Mrs. Rogers came to the House, she stopped at the tube station because the florist there was selling Sol d'Or daffodils from the Isles of Scilly. She looked at the box and they came from Lunnon, her farm on the Isles of Scilly.
The farmers have imagination. They have done a tremendous amount in marketing and promoting their products, particularly the daffodils. The scheme is a little further encouragement. For those reasons, I thank the Minister, on the farmers' behalf, for his announcement tonight.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I had not intended to speak, but I wanted to ask the Minister a simple question. I was sorry that he did not give way. I shall be brief because I know that several hon. Members wish to speak.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred to hedgerows. We have lost 23 per cent. of our hedges in 12 years. I presented a hedgerows measure in 1982. The Government said that it was not required because the threat to hedgerows had ended. Between 1984 and 1990, almost a quarter of Britain's hedgerows disappeared. I urge the Minister to give favourable consideration to the Bill that I have presented in the past few days. It has been refined from the one that was blocked in 1989. It commands the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, including some of the Minister's hon. Friends who have a distinguished record in conservation. I know that I could have had the support of more of his hon. Friends, if a larger number of supporters were allowed. The Minister will recall that we are trying to keep that measure non-partisan and I say that as a long-serving chairman of the Council of Europe sub-committee on the natural environment.
I would like Britain to maintain its leading position in the field. The Government's commitment in the manifesto on which Conservative Members were elected in 1992 means that they have an obligation to ensure that a hedgerows Bill is allowed to go through and that would make up for the decline in interest in hedgerows which may be a consequence of the order.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made one of the most telling contributions when he asked the Minister about the position of those farmers who have already submitted plans to the Ministry and had them accepted. I was very interested and encouraged by the Minister's response that, if plans are accepted, they will receive grant at the higher rate. I note that the Minister is again agreeing to that.
I am especially pleased about that because, sadly, at the time that the farm and conservation grant scheme was

introduced in 1989 there was some difficulty about the interpretation of the expression, "expenditure incurred", which appears in paragraph 2 of the statutory instrument.
One such case involves one of my constituents, Mr. Winston Richards, who was engaged in a project under the agricultural improvement scheme, which predated the farm and conservation grants scheme. The interpretation of "expenditure incurred" in his case has been particularly inflexible. I shall briefly quote to the Minister a letter that I received from the Secretary of State for Wales, which said that he accepted
that the Welsh Office has to determine in any individual case how the term 'expenditure incurred' is to be applied. In doing so it must act in accordance with the guidelines which have been agreed between all Agriculture Departments and the Treasury".
If the interpretation has changed, I wonder how it will apply to constituents such as Mr. Richards, who incurred £15,000 of expenditure and—whether the grant is 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. —has not received a penny of assistance because of the inflexible interpretation of the rule.
I was very much encouraged by what the Minister said about developing the agri-environmental package. Environmentally sensitive areas are playing a more significant role in some of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, such as my constituency. Two areas within it—the Cambrian mountains and the Radnor area —have been designated ESAs in recent times. However, the Brecon Beacons national park—an area of equal beauty —has within it many hedgerows, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will know, on which the skills of hedge laying have been kept alive.
Although other schemes assisted hedge laying and maintenance, I look forward with anticipation to the proposals that.the Minister has said that he will present to the House in due course to ensure that we do not lose those skills and that farmers will be in a position to carry on their important work of looking after our beautiful countryside, in which they should be supported.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I was struck by one comment made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the Liberal Democrat spokesman on agriculture. He said that each area has its traditional landscape. I only wish that that were true in my area on the Lancashire plain. When I first knew it 20 or 25 years ago, it looked as most hon. Members would expect. Now it is a huge plain, which resembles Saskatchewan more than Lancashire.
So many years of destruction and dereliction of hedgerows will need a lot of fixing. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who mentioned having created one mile of hedgerow, would have to work extremely hard to restore some of those in west Lancashire. They have been left as stunted stumps, which have all sorts of implications for country roads in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans)—who has quite a large rural patch, believe it or not—watches as, in dry weather, thousands of tonnes of topsoil annually blow off his constituency and all over mine. Much as I like to receive things from his constituency, we could do without that. That is attributed by the farmers to the destruction and dereliction of hedgerows.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: When my hon. Friend refers to the situation on the south side of Lancashire, will he recognise that, in east Lancashire, the situation on the Pennines is very different in terms of the need for stone walls? The farmers in other parts of Lancashire will not be happy about what a Lancashire Minister said in opening the debate.

Mr. Pickthall: I welcome the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). He is quite right and the wind that blows in his part of the world is even more ferocious than it is in mine, although I maintain that, in a flat area like west Lancashire, any diminution of grants towards the maintenance and building of shelter belts and hedgerows is nothing short of disastrous.
I shall briefly mention the cuts in grant for the handling and storing of poultry manure in my region, where farmers have already expressed a great deal of concern to me about their problems in disposing of that manure. Especially they express concern in connection with the 15 per cent. set-aside, which presents them with extra diffficulties. When I brought the problem to the attention of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials, I was told that the solution was simply to burn it. That seems to me not only an absurd waste of energy in the process of the burning, but an absurd waste of energy in the material itself, which I suggest should be more imaginatively used. The types of grant that we are discussing could be useful in that respect.
I wish to comment on what the Minister said about the low take-up of greenhouse replacement grant. Most of that grant must have been taken up in my constituency, where there are vast areas containing thousands of derelict greenhouses, which are being restored piece by piece, with great difficulty in these times of recession. I very much resent any cut in that grant.
I welcome the provision of grants towards access to agricultural land for the maintenance of stiles, gates and so on, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Such provision is important because popular paths especially sustain much damage from normal wear and tear. Footpath groups such as the Ramblers Association are, quite rightly, aggressive in keeping those paths open to walkers. That costs a good deal of money.
I hope that it will be possible for some of the grant to go towards the major footpath projects that we have in my part of the world. We have a lot of huge sluices in the peatland area, which sometimes can be as much as 20, even 30, ft across. Where the footbridges have fallen into disuse, it costs a vast sum of money to put them back in place. I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will be reaching for her garlic, but Lancashire county council has shared with the Council for the Protection of Rural England the cost of building a bridge there that has cost tens of thousands of pounds. Farmers could not afford that, even with the type of grant assistance that we are discussing. That is the responsibility of local authorities and I hope that some of the money might find its way in their direction.

Mr. Morley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to some of the comments which have been made.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) made a fair contribution, describing how farmers were trying to move

away from grant support. Indeed, there should be a move away from set-aside schemes to environmental support schemes. That is precisely what the Opposition are arguing. The whole farm and conservation grant scheme is extremely small compared with the overall package of agricultural support and in such a small scheme, which has been viable and well supported, the cuts made are mean and petty.
The Opposition want a major shift in the structure of the agricultural support system. I know that farmers want to be more commercial and more independent, but for all sorts. of reasons—whether social, environmental, economic or strategic—there will always be a need for some sections of the agricultural community to receive support. Assistance should be shifted away from subsidies for production towards support for environmental gain. Measures such as the grants scheme should therefore be expanded rather than cut.
I much appreciate what the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said about the Isles of Scilly. I usually spend a week there each year, and last time I was there I had talks with the chief executive about local problems. I generally go to the Isles of Scilly during the week of the Conservative party conference, because there are few better places to be at that time, and I recognise the sensitive and fragile nature of their habitat. Incidentally, I believe that support for increased public access would be much appreciated by the tourists who go to Scilly.
I again emphasise the importance of a proper measure to protect hedgerows. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) may well have created one mile of hedgerow on his farm, but by wrecking the private Member's Bill on hedgerows he destroyed the chance to protect hundreds of miles of hedgerow. His constituents will judge him on that rather than on the one mile that he has created, and the electorate will judge the Government on their commitment, or lack of commitment, to conservation and the environment—a commitment that is sadly missing from the scheme.

Mr. Jack: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to reply to some of the points that have been raised in the debate.
First, I put on record my profound appreciation of the considerable interest shown in the measure by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but especially on the Government side. There has been an excellent turnout. Many of my hon. Friends have stayed throughout the debate, and I was especially pleased by the telling contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris).
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) chastised me for being the bearer of the news that rates of grant were to be diminished. He shows the typical Opposition approach to such matters, in that he is unable to take the wider view. We have heard during the debate about additional farming income from other sources. The Government have had to take a balanced view, because our task is to make the best use of scarce and limited resources. We reviewed the effectiveness of the scheme and, for the reasons that I explained in my opening speech, we concluded that we could afford to make some


sensible and modest reductions without inhibiting the take-up of money. As I have said, about 9,000 farmers have already taken advantage of the waste management grants. We have spent £149 million under the scheme, £119 million of which has gone towards waste handling projects.
One of the common themes of the debate has been the question whether we have put fundamentally at risk our commitment to the restoration of dry-stone walls, hedgerows, traditional farm buildings and various forms of banks and cover. I commend to the House an excellent book called "Conservation Grants for Farmers", a joint publication by my Department and the Department of the Environment, which lists a tremendous range of available schemes.
I can put on record the fact that, in additional to our expenditure, the Department of the Environment has a budget of some £105 million, which goes to the Countryside Commission, to national parks, to English Nature and to Groundwork, all of which have various schemes to deal with some of the important features of our countryside. The Government's commitment to working to restore those features is second to none, especially in the extension of the environmentally sensitive areas.
While considering the expenditure on those environmentally sensitive areas, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe chose to ignore the fact that by the financial year 1996–97, £63 million will have been spent on that highly focused form of help to special types of countryside, of which hedgerow management and dry stone wall restoration are a part.
I visited Cumbria during the Christmas recess—I did not visit the constituency of the hon. Member for Workington—and went into an environmentally sensitive area. One of the farmers there said that the available money meant that there was no excuse for not maintaining the country craft of restoring dry-stone walls. Opposition Members' use of some rather cataclysmic and flowery language to describe the changes, when they are balanced by the introduction of many other schemes, must be for the consumption of local newspapers.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred to the wider environmental package. I remind him that, in addition to the environmentally sensitive areas and the continuity of the farm and conservation grant scheme, and the schemes which I mentioned under the Department of the Environment's responsibility, in 1994 we shall introduce the moorland scheme, the habitat scheme, nitrate sensitive areas, the countryside access scheme—which the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe mentioned—organic aid schemes, and so on. We are not reluctant to take seriously our responsibility for the countryside and the environment.
Opposition Members must have written their speeches on the financial impact of the changes before I had a chance to put on record that expenditure in the next financial year under the farm and conservation grant scheme in England will be £27 million—£2 million less than it is in the present financial year. By any standards, that is a substantial amount of money spent on such important matters.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe asked me a number of questions. He asked whether resources could be made available to separate in the schemes water from building roofs and run-offs resulting from the farm

waste scheme. The answer is no. If the scheme had been extended to do that, we would have ended up cutting grant rates on the wider scheme. The hon. Gentleman asked whether access provision was paid for by money diverted from the agri-environment package. The short answer to that is no. It is in the envelope of the existing farm and conservation grant scheme.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that there was no consultation between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment on the changes. The fact that I have pointed out a growing range of schemes administered by the Department of the Environment which dealt with many of the sensitive issues that he chose to raise shows carefully that, as expenditure in one area of Government rises, quite properly we re-examine expenditure in those same areas of our own budget.
Much criticism has been made of money that farmers are receiving under the arable area payments scheme and in other community receipts. It was this Government who fought for the reforms of the common agricultural policy and it was this Government who fought to control expenditure in that area. Farmers cannot ignore the fact that that income enables them, at a time when, properly, price support is being reduced and they are becoming more market sensitive, to play their part with or without grant schemes and to maintain the traditional fabric of the countryside which they have fashioned. The hon. Member for North Cornwall should not lose sight of that fact, because that is a farmer's responsibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) made his speech from the Back Benches for the first time in six years. It was a special contribution, and I am glad that he made it. He reminded us of the importance of good management practice within the set-aside scheme. I assure him that there is growing awareness of that. My hon. Friend will be aware of the new requirements within the rotational and non-rotational set-aside, and I shall write to him and spell out in more detail some of the important measures. I welcomed my hon. Friend's recognition of the need to re-examine our spending priorities in light of the substantial income that farmers receive from various sources.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the habitat scheme. That is part of the agri-environment package. the hon. Gentleman cannot walk away from the fact that we are committed to introducing it during 1994. I emphasised environmentally sensitive areas. They cover about 10 per cent. of the land area of England. That brings to bear in a very focused way schemes to deal with many of the points to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention. I am certainly convinced, from my own involvement in inspection during the Christmas recess, that farmers in those areas are taking advantage of schemes.

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mr. Jack: I am sorry, but I shall not give way; I want to finish my speech in a moment.
Such schemes are contributing to the preservation of those important features of our landscape.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives for his generous comments on the Scilly Isles. It is right and proper that, when discussing big agriculture, we do not forget small, innovative farmers in places such as the Scilly Isles.
This has been an interesting debate. It clearly shows that, when farm incomes are rising, the Government were right to re-examine their priorities. I hope that I have demonstrated that we do not shirk our responsibilities in the environmental sense and that the schemes of my Department and of the Department of the Environment fulfil the objectives laid down by the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 38.

Division No. 79]
[2.41 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Faber, David


Alexander, Richard
Fabricant, Michael


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Ashby, David
French, Douglas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gallie, Phil


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Gardiner, Sir George


Baldry, Tony
Gillan, Cheryl


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bates, Michael
Gorst, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hague, William


Booth, Hartley
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Boswell, Tim
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, Andrew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Hawkins, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Hayes, Jerry


Bright, Graham
Heald, Oliver


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hendry, Charles


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Burns, Simon
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Butterfill, John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jenkin, Bernard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Congdon, David
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Conway, Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Key, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Devlin, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Legg, Barry


Dover, Den
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Duncan, Alan
Lidington, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Maclean, David


Elletson, Harold
Madel, Sir David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Malone, Gerald


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Marland, Paul


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian





Merchant, Piers
Spink, Dr Robert


Milligan, Stephen
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moate, Sir Roger
Stephen, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Allan


Moss, Malcolm
Streeter, Gary


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sykes, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thomason, Roy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Patnick, Irvine
Trend, Michael


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pickles, Eric
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Walden, George


Richards, Rod
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wells, Bowen


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whittingdale, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Tom
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wood, Timothy


Sims, Roger



Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spencer, Sir Derek
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Barnes, Harry
Llwyd, Elfyn


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McMaster, Gordon


Cann, Jamie
McWiiliam, John


Clelland, David
Michael, Alun


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Miller, Andrew


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Morley, Elliot


Dafis, Cynog
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Rendel, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Skinner, Dennis


Foulkes, George
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Turner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Tyler, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Wallace, James


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wise, Audrey


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wray, Jimmy


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mr. Colin Pickthall and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2901) dated 24th November 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Sheltered Accommodation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway]

Mr. Andrew Miller: First, may I say how pleased I am to be able to raise this issue in the House. My interest started as a result of a complaint from a group of constituents who were living in one of the types of property which I intend to describe.
When the group originally wrote to me, they also copied the letter and sent it to a now retired county councillor, Mr. Ken Maynard, who lives close to me. He had written an article for the magazine Choice. My subsequent research has so far identified 65 hon. Members with a constituency interest, and so far 93 colleagues have signed early-day motion 161. Before I go any further, I put on record my thanks to Ken Maynard, to Wendy James of Choice magazine and to my researcher, Keir Woods. They have done a tremendous amount of work to uncover the scandals which are going on up and down the country.
I refer in particular to owner-occupied sheltered accommodation where the freehold is owned by a third party. Such types of property expanded rapidly during the 1980s, and there are now more than 80,000 units of accommodation in 2,000 developments across the country. Managing agents are appointed by the freeholder—usually the builder of the complex—to provide a certain range of services, including that of a warden in return for a monthly services charge. The managing agents also deal with the appointment of firms to undertake building repairs and to deal with contractors.
That is well and good, except in the case of inefficient, uncaring and incompetent managing agents, who provide sub-standard care and who do not give access to audited accounts.
The examples that I have uncovered range across a wide spectrum. They include the sacking of a window cleaner so that a more expensive sister company of the managing agent could be brought in to do the job a lot worse. I found overcharging and hidden charges, including an exorbitant percentage of the service charge directed towards company administration. In some cases, that amounted to almost 30 per cent. A warden was paid £7,000 a year for just three mornings work a week.
I also found outrageous and unjustified service charge rises of as much as 60 per cent. over three years. They were in direct contravention of brochure promises, and massively in excess of most people's pension increases. Owners or relatives of the owners of properties were responsible for charges when properties were vacant. Despite that, leaseholders were prevented from subletting. In some cases, a 1 per cent. payment had to be made to the managing agents' solicitors just for surrendering the lease when a sale was made. There was lack of consultation with leaseholders before properties were passed from one group of managing agents to another.
There were also problems with a National House Building Council guarantee which ran from the date of the first occupancy in a development and not the last. That left the managing agents reluctant to challenge builders, as they do not hold possession of the lease until the last property is occupied. Transfer fees, a proportion of the sale price, were paid to the landlord on the sale of the lease.
They do not benefit the occupier, but go directly to the landlord, for whom they are a useful source of regular income.
The principle of peppercorn rents has long been established in the leasehold sector. A minimal ground rent is charged to maintain freeholders' rights. That has long since vanished from the sheltered accommodation sector. In its place, freeholders often charge high ground rents to leaseholders who have paid capital sums for their properties but receive no benefits.
I want to give examples to show how widespread the scandal is. In Peterborough, a resident bought a property managed by Haven Management, a subsidiary of Anglia Secure Homes, because she felt that she might one day require a wheelchair, and she was allowed storage space in the property. She was subsequently told that she could not store her wheelchair in the property, because the battery might emit toxic fumes. Despite assuring the managers that the batteries were not of that type, the poor woman was left high and dry.
In another case involving Haven Management in Cromer, Anglia Secure Homes built the houses, and related firms received all the contracts to maintain the properties. Painting was carried out in bad weather. It peeled off quickly and had to be replaced. In that case, no regard was paid to safety considerations. Railings were left out of place for some weeks. Only when a shareholder who was also a resident threatened to tell a shareholders' meeting did the company relent and pay money that it owed to residents.
Hanover housing association in Droitwich appointed what was described as a poor-quality warden, who failed to repair important things like the timer switch on communal lighting facilities in corridors. In Millbrae gardens in Scotland, changes in prices between 1989 and 1992 were such that service costs rose 40 per cent.; warden costs rose by 50 per cent.; central alarm costs rose 31 per cent.; and administration costs rose by a staggering 100 per cent.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I have waited until this late hour to listen to the hon. Gentleman, because he is raising a very important subject. He is aware that some of my constituents have contacted him. I have received correspondence, and I am concerned about the figures that the hon. Gentleman has recounted. At a time of low inflation, when prices have been held down, service charges across a range of services provided to the elderly in sheltered accommodation appear to be inflationary and exorbitant.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point when he says that there is often great difficulty in finding out how these sums have been charged. Elderly residents often have great difficulty in presenting their case, even when they act collectively, and sometimes even when some of the residents have a legal background. Increasingly, they write to MPs and others seeking assistance.
One of the most frightening aspects of the problem is the fact that these are elderly people who entered sheltered accommodation at a time in their lives when they were looking carefully at their income and what it would provide in their latter years. These huge, unexpected and regular increases cause enormous stress and anxiety at a time when people least expect it and least need it. I hope that the Minister will pay careful attention to the hon. Gentleman's account, because I know from the information that he has


received that this is not just a small, isolated incident. There are cases all around the country, including some in the west country, and we are all concerned about the trend.

Mr. Miller: The hon. Lady makes some important points, and I hope that the Minister was listening carefully. I shall seek to address some of them specifically later in my speech, when I pose some ideas to the Minister about how significant improvements can be made.
I was speaking about Millbrae gardens in Scotland. When residents withheld some money, Hanover went to court and was ordered to go to arbitration but refused. Its representative system in the properties is deeply flawed, because employees of the company sit on a committee which can only make decisions unanimously. That is crazy.
In Hampshire, the Humanist housing association has made increases of 40·6 per cent. and a management fee increase of 48 per cent. and has said:
We do not speculate on their willingness to pay, they are bound to do so by the terms of their leases.
That association is a charity. Some charity! I uncovered an example in Halifax of service charge increases in excess of 36 per cent. in a year.
In Scotland, the situation is slightly different, but the House should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who did a tremendous amount to uncover the practices of a company called McCarthy and Stone. That company recently sold its subsidiary, Perevel, which managed some 16,000 of its units, and has transferred the freeholds of its properties to Perevel. One wonders how much consultation preceded those moves.
These problems have arisen basically because there is inadequate regulation of managing agents and enforcement of the regulatons. It is widely assumed that all leaseholders are protected in law enshrining the rights of the tenant in protection from many of the problems that I have highlighted, especially rising prices, hidden charges, sub-standard service or lack of consultation and access to accounts.
Enforcement through the legal process is extremely complicated and time-consuming. For example, to replace a managing agent, preliminary notice must be served, the name and address of the tenant lodging the complaint, intent to go to court to have a manager appointed, and grounds under which the attempt will be made have to be stated, and an ultimatum must be sent to the landlord. If the landlord and freeholder do not take any positive action, the tenant must apply to the court for the appointment of a manager. The names and addresses of all those who are affected have to be listed, and, finally, the tenant has to recommend a manager to the court. Would the Minister want to follow such a procedure now, let alone when he is 75 years of age?
In other instances the process is similarly long and involved and, for a number of reasons, it is off-putting for the leaseholder.
Some of the people are frail and not really capable of going through all that trouble, and the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) touched on that. They moved into sheltered accommodation to avoid just such hassle. The process is extremely slow, particularly if the landlord or managing agent decides to contest the matter, and the pensioner may well die in the meantime.
Finally, there is the cost. The people concerned are not rich; they are often on fixed pensions, as the hon. Lady said. A gentleman from Tewkesbury was advised against taking legal action
mainly because of the risk of very high costs".
Even the managing agents of sheltered housing, who are advantaged by such a complicated process, seem to appreciate its absurdity. Robert Smith, finance director of Haven said in The Daily Telegraph in October 1989:
there are some historic cases where there are anomalies, and it would be better if people could go to a totally impartial ombudsman to resolve these disputes by arbitration. It seems crazy that people should have to go to court which is expensive, stressful and demoralising".
That was true in 1989; it is much more true today.
The present position is described in a letter from a Minister in a letter to Mr. Maynard on 27 April 1993 saying something to the effect that the ombudsman service for housing association tenants is available to owner-occupiers where the tenants are a registered housing association. However, that does not take into account those leaseholders whose managing agents are not a registered housing association—a large proportion of the cases to which I refer.
The ombudsman is not a statutory appointment by the Minister and does not have the power to enforce his conclusions unless he is hired as an arbiter to settle a dispute, for which a fee is required. He reports to the Housing Corporation, which uses its statutory powers if action needs to be taken.
The remit of the ombudsman is unclear. He is unable to rule on the justness of a service charge, and thus is useless to a large number of owner-occupiers who have legitimate grievances. It appears that he will be an irrelevance to the majority of complainants.
The limitation of the ombudsman must also be noted. He can act only on the reference being made, and that presupposes all the points that I mentioned earlier coming to a head and being agreed on by the tenants of a particular property in an organised group
.
Recent legislation states that, if 66 per cent. of leaseholders in a sheltered development decide to buy out their freehold, they are at liberty to do so. They can choose their own managing agents. However, why should leaseholders, who have already paid substantial sums of money to purchase the leasehold, be asked to pay further sums of money just to get legal protection? Again, the process is extremely complicated and the organisation involved extremely onerous, particularly to the elderly.
The landlord is entitled to expect the investment value of the block and half the marriage value, and compensation for loss of any development rights. In addition, the new freeholders take on joint responsibility for the management of the flats, even though they may employ an outside managing agent and they are all responsible to shareholders. Those are not exactly the issues that people want to take on at that time of life.
Despite the complications and the expense, some groups have sought to purchase of the freehold and it is not as simple as it might seem, even to a host of lawyers. There was an example in Hayling Island in Hampshire, where it was reported that obstructive tactics from a freeholder's solicitors were used in order to circumvent the leaseholders' right to the first refusal on the freehold. Such tactics are deplorable and must be stopped.
What is needed? FRASH—the Federation of Residents Associations in Sheltered Accommodation—presented the


other place with some recommendations before 6 April last year, hoping that amendments would be made to the Housing and Urban Development Bill, which became the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. FRASH sought, first, regular and public review of service charges rises; secondly, independent opinion on what is a reasonable charge—incidentally, Age Concern has suggested between £6 and £12 a week—thirdly, random independent audits to ensure discipline; fourthly, an agency to monitor the application of the codes approved by the Secretary of State and envisaged in the Bill but not with the force of law; and finally, the availability of an arbiter or an ombudsman to settle disputes.
There is also an urgent requirement for some direct accountability. Currently, managing agents are responsible to the wrong people—to the freeholders who appoint them rather than to the leaseholders to whom they have a duty of care. Some amendments in that respect may go a long way towards solving the problem.
David Bogle, the housing manager of the Guardian housing association, was reported in The Sunday Times of 12 April 1992 as worried that leaseholders who purchase their freehold and select their own managing agents
could fall prey to irresponsible management companies offering low tenders".
That sounds suspiciously like a justification for management companies imposing high charges.
Although it is a pretence to claim that increased accountability will automatically lead to irresponsibility, the deficiency in the Government's approach thus far is clear. Even if the right to buy the freehold worked effectively and was attractive to residents, without some regulatory system residents would still be open to the type of abuse to which I have referred.
Beyond the expansion of the role of the ombudsman, the problem requires a two-pronged assault. The regulations in place need to be backed by more stringent monitoring to ensure that they work in line with FRASH's recommendations and, if leaseholders were given the right to choose their managing agents, a good proportion of agents would improve their services voluntarily or risk losing business. Managing agents would clearly have to have statutory duties towards the freeholder, but pressure would be taken off the leaseholder, as he would no longer have to go through complicated legal processes to ensure accountability. I recommend that the Minister considers that novel approach in great detail.
Finally, may I thank the Minister for replying to the series of parliamentary questions that I tabled in November? I can provide him with yet further enormous amounts of detailed documentation on cases across the country but, now that the Minister is aware of the problem, I hope that he and his Department will have the good grace to acknowledge how widespread it is and agree that it justifies a fresh look. I am sure that all parties would welcome moves to improve the lot of the elderly in the situation that I have described.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I have listened with great care to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and also took note of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs.

Browning). I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the management of sheltered housing and agree that elderly leaseholders, like all owner-occupiers, should of course have the greatest possible control over the way in which their properties are managed. That is why all leaseholders do, in fact, have statutory protection, do have rights under the terms of their lease and do have opportunities to take control when they wish to do so. Indeed, control was one of the most important principles behind recent housing legislation, especially with regard to leaseholders.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the attractiveness of the sheltered housing option is being eroded because leaseholders do not have sufficient protection, and that there should be further protection to ensure that managing agents are accountable.
The lease protects the leaseholder, because it forms a contract with the landlord. Anyone entering into a lease needs to take legal advice before signing any agreement. A lease is a series of mutually reinforcing covenants, rights and remedies that need to be understood. Any lawyer specialising in property law will be able to examine a lease and advise the prospective leaseholder of its terms and protection. It is to everyone's advantage if disputes do not lead to the courts and to all the expense and distress that can cause. I therefore welcome the services of the Sheltered Housing Advisory and Conciliation Service.
The hon. Gentleman said that one managing agent's actions had directly contravened a brochure promise. If I were the lawyer representing the leaseholder in question, my first instinct would be to ascertain the terms of the lease. In the case where the managing agent would not allow a wheelchair to be stored, as a lawyer I find it difficult to imagine what restrictive covenant the landlord could possibly have inserted in the lease to prevent that leaseholder from doing as he wished.
Both parties are entitled to expect the terms of their contract to be honoured—and if they are not, remedies are available. If a landlord fails to perform his obligations under the lease, the leaseholder may take him to court.
I am aware of concern that some leases are unsatisfactory, and Parliament has given all leaseholders statutory protection under the Landlord and Tenant Acts 1985 and 1987, strengthened by the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. That legislation strengthened the courts' powers in cases of proven bad management, gave leaseholders the right to a management, gave leaseholders the right to a management audit and, most importantly, allowed long leaseholders the right to buy their freeholds or to extend their leases.
I shall describe the most important protection given by those Acts. For management problems alone, there are a formidable range of rights. Leaseholders have a right to information that will enable them to identify their landlord and an address in England or Wales to serve notices. They have the right to find out about the insurance of their block or complex and can challenge it in court. Also, a recognised tenants association has the right to be consulted about the appointment or employment of a managing agent.
If the management of a block proves totally unsatisfactory, leaseholders have the sanction of asking the court to appoint a manager to allow compulsory acquisition.
Under a new right that only came into force on 1 November 1993, leaseholders may require a full


management audit of their landlord's service charges or other management accounts, which will provide evidence where there has been bad management. Such evidence may be used in court.
The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend gave examples in which the levelof service charges was of concern. Under legislation, leaseholders have the right to ask how charges are made up and to inspect documents. They have full statutory protection to challenge unreasonable charges, and a stututory right to be consulted about major works.
Qualifying long leaseholders have the ultimate sanction, where they wish to obtain control of enfranchising under the 1993 Act without the need to prove bad management. That right is open to elderly leaseholders where they are qualifying tenants—although I appreciate that in many cases, enfranchisement would not be the right course for elderly leaseholders.
I acknowledge that the choice of sheltered housing may not have been totally satisfactory for everyone. In many cases, dissatisfaction is genuine and needs resolving. In others, it has been brought about by a failure of communication between managers and tenants.
In cases in which dissatisfaction is genuine, as I have said, we have recently introduced an important power that offers protection for all leaseholders. The 1993 Act gives the Secretary of State power to approve codes of practice relating to the management of residential property. Such codes are likely to be drafted with the consensus of best practice from across a wide range of interested bodies, to ensure that they command general respect. They will be useful in directing the managers of residential property, and helping tenants where management is not satisfactory.

Mr. Miller: Will the Minister assure me that he will consult the organisations that represent such residents before publishing codes of practice?

Mr. Baldry: Yes, indeed when we are drawing up codes of practice, it is our usual practice to consult bodies that will have an interest in them, wherever possible. Where there are recognised special interest groups or consumer groups, it will be the general practice of the

Department to consult those organisations. I am convinced that the codes of practice can play a vital role in improving standards of management of residential property.
The hon. Gentleman called for the introduction of an ombudsman service to register and regulate landlords or managing agents in the private sheltered housing sector, similar to the service set up by the Housing Corporation for tenants of registered housing associations. I am not sure how that arrangement would work. Unless the parties are prepared to agree some other jurisdiction, only the courts can settle private disputes and impose sanctions; an ombudsman, therefore, would be of benefit only if both parties agreed to conciliation.
The hon. Gentleman gave the example of a managing agent who said he felt that a matter should go to independent arbitration. It is always possible, of course, for a matter to go to independent arbitration—or any other form of arbitration—if both sides agree; the difficulty in such cases is the fact that landlord and leaseholders cannot agree, cannot arbitrate and cannot concur that legal agreements have been broken. The only answer is legislation to replace the jurisdiction of the courts with that of an ombudsman—but I see no scope for an ombudsman, beyond the role of a voluntary conciliator.
Other roles for ombudsmen—including that of the parliamentary commissioner—specifically exclude the power to investigate if there is access to the courts to seek relief. In addition, the ombudsman is concerned with maladministration, rather than the level of service charges. A conciliation service is already available to leaseholders in sheltered accommodation, sponsored by Age Concern.
I consider that elderly leaseholders—along with all other leaseholders—have considerable rights, remedies and protection under existing legislation. I shall, of course, take careful note of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, in case there is a lacuna in the protection offered; but I believe that the new legislation provides considerable protection. I shall, of course, take a close interest in that legislation—

The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes past Three o'clock